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)

BStrong 4th January 2020 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943130)
Nope. The meaning was clear. A 2 foot air-filled balloon is nothing like a 767. Like the majority of the comments on this forum, his was irrelevant.

If there's an expert on this forum concerning irrelevancy it would be you, but projecting your failures on others isn't becoming.

yankee451 4th January 2020 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BStrong (Post 12943138)
If there's an expert on this forum concerning irrelevancy it would be you, but projecting your failures on others isn't becoming.

Aw shucks, then another comment comes to prove me right. Again. And here I am focusing on the lightly damaged cladding and the sharply bent steel.

TJM 4th January 2020 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943109)
Thanks for the feedback. If my conclusions are wrong, please provide a better explanation for the sharply bent steel columns and the lightly damaged aluminum sheeting.

Chaotic damage caused by a great ******* airliner crashing into a building.

smartcooky 4th January 2020 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943069)
But we're not comparing them to the rest of the wing.

No, YOU are not comparing them. I am.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943069)
They are very massive when compared to the flimsy aluminium sheeting.

It does not matter how massive they are in relation to what they hit, as much as it matters how fast they were going

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943069)
They could only lightly damage that sheeting before taking a hard turn to the right and becoming much bigger and much more massive as they sharply bent the more massive and less brittle steel.

That is not what happened.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943109)
If my conclusions are wrong, please provide a better explanation for the sharply bent steel columns and the lightly damaged aluminum sheeting.


The exterior walls and facades of the WTC were not single, solid structures, they were assembled from individual pieces. It was the connections between the pieces that failed when the planes hit them, not the column and facade pieces themselves.


And if you refuse to believe that speed can allow a light, weak object to damage a stronger heavier object, then watch

(this is time-linked to bypass the physics and technical stuff because you wouldn't understand any of it)

https://youtu.be/I9zBGgpzl0I?t=305

SpitfireIX 4th January 2020 02:42 PM

It's from Purdue, so Yankee and his ilk will reject it out of hand. :rolleyes:

yankee451 4th January 2020 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12943149)
Chaotic damage caused by a great ******* airliner crashing into a building.

So chaotic practically the same damage can be seen in both towers. Lightly damaged aluminum sheeting at the far left, followed by progressively worse damage, sharply bent steel box columns in a completely different direction than the wing was traveling, and an inward-blasting hole on the ninth column from the left, which was nowhere near where the alleged engine impacted.

This damage supports my conclusions nicely, but that of the skeptics, not so much. Hence the teeth gnashing and hand waving by the misnamed skeptics.

yankee451 4th January 2020 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12943151)
The exterior walls and facades of the WTC were not single, solid structures, they were assembled from individual pieces. It was the connections between the pieces that failed when the planes hit them, not the column and facade pieces themselves.

I'm surprised to read this. You're right of course, the exterior walls were not single, solid structures.

But your claim that it was the connections that failed is easily disproved by simply examining the evidence we all have at our disposal.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...1-1024x617.png

Wall panel seams highlighted below:

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo.../07/Seams7.png

Crazy Chainsaw 4th January 2020 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943213)
So chaotic practically the same damage can be seen in both towers. Lightly damaged aluminum sheeting at the far left, followed by progressively worse damage, sharply bent steel box columns in a completely different direction than the wing was traveling, and an inward-blasting hole on the ninth column from the left, which was nowhere near where the alleged engine impacted.

This damage supports my conclusions nicely, but that of the skeptics, not so much. Hence the teeth gnashing and hand waving by the misnamed skeptics.

Which only means your conclusion is totally worthless opinion from someone who doesn't understand basic high energy physics of plane crashes and is unable to answer simple questions on your theories.
Debunked next crazyness please this is 19 years boring.

TJM 4th January 2020 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943213)
So chaotic practically the same damage can be seen in both towers. Lightly damaged aluminum sheeting at the far left, followed by progressively worse damage, sharply bent steel box columns in a completely different direction than the wing was traveling, and an inward-blasting hole on the ninth column from the left, which was nowhere near where the alleged engine impacted.

This damage supports my conclusions nicely, but that of the skeptics, not so much. Hence the teeth gnashing and hand waving by the misnamed skeptics.

If two missiles can produce practically the same damage, why can't two great ******* airliners?

yankee451 4th January 2020 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12943230)
If two missiles can produce practically the same damage, why can't two great ******* airliners?

Because airliners are designed for slicing through...air. Missiles are designed to penetrate harder stuff. The evidence supports my conclusion, not yours.

Jack by the hedge 4th January 2020 03:51 PM

Using a photograph taken from below and to the right, how did you differentiate between parts bent inwards and parts bent to the right?

Also could you be a bit more specific about which steel columns you believe are bent to the right? You do love your slogan about the plane wing "taking a sharp turn to the right" but I don't seem to be seeing whatever you think you're seeing.

I'd also be curious to know whether you have considered the accuracy that would have been required to make a missile hit exactly the right spot to carve a wing-shaped groove across the face of the building. If it was raking across at a very steep angle then mere inches error to the left or right would have resulted in a "wing" impression which was several feet too long or too short. Is such precision even possible? Was it possible in 2001?

yankee451 4th January 2020 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 12943229)
Which only means your conclusion is totally worthless opinion from someone who doesn't understand basic high energy physics of plane crashes and is unable to answer simple questions on your theories.
Debunked next crazyness please this is 19 years boring.

The same simple questions cannot be answered by you in support of your theory, whatever that is. The lateral bends to the steel and the lightly damaged cladding are consistent with the lateral impact of cruise missiles, not the head on impact of a jet. If you could turn to physics to support your conclusion you would. But you don't. What's good for the goose ought to be good for the gander. But it isn't. Why is that?

yankee451 4th January 2020 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12943284)
Using a photograph taken from below and to the right, how did you differentiate between parts bent inwards and parts bent to the right?

Also could you be a bit more specific about which steel columns you believe are bent to the right? You do love your slogan about the plane wing "taking a sharp turn to the right" but I don't seem to be seeing whatever you think you're seeing.

I'd also be curious to know whether you have considered the accuracy that would have been required to make a missile hit exactly the right spot to carve a wing-shaped groove across the face of the building. If it was raking across at a very steep angle then mere inches error to the left or right would have resulted in a "wing" impression which was several feet too long or too short. Is such precision even possible? Was it possible in 2001?


Hehe, the inevitable denial that the columns are bend to the right, rears it's head.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...s-1024x634.jpg

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...ide-dents1.jpg

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...-left-side.jpg

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...nter-right.jpg

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...enter-left.jpg

TJM 4th January 2020 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943280)
Because airliners are designed for slicing through...air. Missiles are designed to penetrate harder stuff. The evidence supports my conclusion, not yours.

I didn't ask about what supports your conclusion, I asked If two missiles can produce practically the same damage, why can't two great ******* airliners?

Jack by the hedge 4th January 2020 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943280)
Because airliners are designed for slicing through...air. Missiles are designed to penetrate harder stuff. The evidence supports my conclusion, not yours.

How did the attack's planners manage to persuade their masters that it was smarter to fire a fusillade of cruise missiles at Manhattan's tallest buildings rather than just crash planes? It sounds insane. Not figuratively insane; literally mad. What reassurance did they offer? Nobody will notice? We can suppress all the photos and videos? And what reason did they give? That planes were no good because they wouldn't make the right sort of holes? But the whole plan was to make *exactly* the kind of holes planes would make. So clearly the sane option was to use planes. What sort of loony would propose this plan and what sort of loony would let them try?

yankee451 4th January 2020 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12943292)
I didn't ask about what supports your conclusion, I asked If two missiles can produce practically the same damage, why can't two great ******* airliners?

You mean, IF airliners were designed for penetrating hardened targets (like missiles ARE), then why wouldn't they have produced the same damage? Well IF that was the case (it ISN'T), then I guess to be able to create the same damage they would have to have impacted at the same angle of attack, speed, and trajectory. Which they didn't.

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...flight-175.png

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo.../approach1.png

yankee451 4th January 2020 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12943295)
How did the attack's planners manage to persuade their masters that it was smarter to fire a fusillade of cruise missiles at Manhattan's tallest buildings rather than just crash planes? It sounds insane. Not figuratively insane; literally mad. What reassurance did they offer? Nobody will notice? We can suppress all the photos and videos? And what reason did they give? That planes were no good because they wouldn't make the right sort of holes? But the whole plan was to make *exactly* the kind of holes planes would make. So clearly the sane option was to use planes. What sort of loony would propose this plan and what sort of loony would let them try?

Maybe they considered using a weapon that was capable of causing the damage, knowing that the majority of the cud-chewing herd will think whatever the television tells them to think.

Jack by the hedge 4th January 2020 04:14 PM

Your photos seem to indicate one particular steel column bent in the direction the plane was going when it struck the tower. Nothing very surprising there.

If you propose it was actually hit by a cruise missile, what direction was it travelling in? The same, or steeply raking from the side?

TJM 4th January 2020 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943301)
You mean,<evasive BS snipped>

Not what I mean at all.

Jack by the hedge 4th January 2020 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943302)
Maybe they considered using a weapon that was capable of causing the damage, knowing that the majority of the cud-chewing herd will think whatever the television tells them to think.

Have you considered that wouldn't be a sufficiently persuasive argument to make other than a dribbling imbecile give it the go-ahead?

Have you got an argument that actual grownups might swallow?

yankee451 4th January 2020 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12943307)
Your photos seem to indicate one particular steel column bent in the direction the plane was going when it struck the tower. Nothing very surprising there.

If you propose it was actually hit by a cruise missile, what direction was it travelling in? The same, or steeply raking from the side?

Something like this:

https://youtu.be/zXE9u33pRTA

https://youtu.be/E0Rf_sS42U8

https://youtu.be/5_a1foRId6M

yankee451 4th January 2020 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12943311)
Have you considered that wouldn't be a sufficiently persuasive argument to make other than a dribbling imbecile give it the go-ahead?

Have you got an argument that actual grownups might swallow?

Only that the lightly damaged cladding at the far left, followed by the progressively worse damaged steel columns, sharply bent in a completely different direction than the aluminum wing of a 767 would have been traveling, have got you reduced to attacking my intelligence, as if that somehow changes the damage evidence.

yankee451 4th January 2020 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12943310)
Not what I mean at all.

Then please explain how the lightly damaged aluminum sheeting at the far left of both impact holes, could possibly have been caused by a wingtip like this impacting at 500 plus miles per hour:
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...0278c1d4_b.jpg

Captain_Swoop 4th January 2020 04:33 PM

Yes, it impacted at 500 plus miles an hour

Jack by the hedge 4th January 2020 04:38 PM

So if the column was bent by a missile flying in from the left at a steep angle, why is it bent inward so much too? Makes no sense.

Such things are relative I guess; it makes no sense but it's not in the same league as a "plan" which involves shooting a fusillade of missiles at one of Manhattan's tallest buildings, waiting to give everyone time to gather to look then firing another fusillade at the neighbouring building, before declaring that it was actually two planes and assuming nobody would notice and nobody would be filming it.

Jack by the hedge 4th January 2020 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943317)
Only that the lightly damaged cladding at the far left, followed by the progressively worse damaged steel columns, sharply bent in a completely different direction than the aluminum wing of a 767 would have been traveling, have got you reduced to attacking my intelligence, as if that somehow changes the damage evidence.

They're not bent in a completely different direction. And it's interesting that you think I'm attacking *your* intelligence when in fact I'm saying how stupid the people who attempted such a plan would have to be.

Seriously, can you imagine any possible presentation of this hare-brained plot which would result in the leaders saying "Yup, that could work" rather than "What *exactly* do we do about the ten thousand people who see the missiles?"?

yankee451 4th January 2020 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 12943326)
Yes, it impacted at 500 plus miles an hour

Either that's some seriously strong aluminum sheeting, or something a lot smaller than a 767 wing hit here.

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...MAGED-SFRM.png

yankee451 4th January 2020 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12943338)
So if the column was bent by a missile flying in from the left at a steep angle, why is it bent inward so much too? Makes no sense.

Such things are relative I guess; it makes no sense but it's not in the same league as a "plan" which involves shooting a fusillade of missiles at one of Manhattan's tallest buildings, waiting to give everyone time to gather to look then firing another fusillade at the neighbouring building, before declaring that it was actually two planes and assuming nobody would notice and nobody would be filming it.

Your incredulity is noted. Multiple trajectories indicate multiple projectiles.

yankee451 4th January 2020 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12943347)
They're not bent in a completely different direction. And it's interesting that you think I'm attacking *your* intelligence when in fact I'm saying how stupid the people who attempted such a plan would have to be.

Unfortunately the facts don't support your beliefs. The people who did this knew full well that most of us won't believe anything that doesn't agree with the T.V. They aren't stupid.

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...1-48-16-PM.png

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...rner-first.png

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...ide-dents1.jpg


Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12943347)

Seriously, can you imagine any possible presentation of this hare-brained plot which would result in the leaders saying "Yup, that could work" rather than "What *exactly* do we do about the ten thousand people who see the missiles?"?

It isn't a matter of what you find believable, it is a matter of what the facts support.

"The truth doesn't change according to our ability to stomach it emotionally." ~ Flanner O'Connor

Captain_Swoop 4th January 2020 05:28 PM

You are ******* insane. Get help!

Unless this is one giant Poe whivh is the only charitable explanation for it all.

The Common Potato 4th January 2020 05:28 PM

yankee451,

Next time it snows go outside and throw a snowball at a window in your house. Do it with little force, some force, lots of force. Report back.

yankee451 4th January 2020 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 12943394)
You are ******* insane. Get help!

Unless this is one giant Poe whivh is the only charitable explanation for it all.

You could be right. Alas, the evidence supports my conclusions, not yours.

yankee451 4th January 2020 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Common Potato (Post 12943396)
yankee451,

Next time it snows go outside and throw a snowball at a window in your house. Do it with little force, some force, lots of force. Report back.

First, you explain to me how a 767 that spreads its mass and momentum over a wide area, is like a snowball. Then you explain to me how a pane of glass is like the steel columns of the WTC.

Norman Alexander 4th January 2020 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943407)
First, you explain to me how a 767 that spreads its mass and momentum over a wide area, is like a snowball. Then you explain to me how a pane of glass is like the steel columns of the WTC.

Completely missed the point. Just go throw the snowballs, dude.

yankee451 4th January 2020 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander (Post 12943416)
Completely missed the point. Just go throw the snowballs, dude.

Nope, I completely got the point. A snowball thrown against a pane of glass is nothing like a 767 slicing through parallel steel box columns. Dude.

Jack by the hedge 4th January 2020 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943388)
Unfortunately the facts don't support your beliefs. The people who did this knew full well that most of us won't believe anything that doesn't agree with the T.V. They aren't stupid.

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...1-48-16-PM.png

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...d-cladding.png

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...ide-dents1.jpg




It isn't a matter of what you find believable, it is a matter of what the facts support.

"The truth doesn't change according to our ability to stomach it emotionally." ~ Flanner O'Connor

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

But your thinking the impact damage looks a bit fishy does not make it impossible. And having rejected what thousands upon thousands of people saw with their own eyes, you have substituted an impossible attack with non-existent weapons and a hand wave about some kind of cover up operation which itself is quite clearly absurd and not remotely plausible.

Still you keep batting away the obvious: what did the proposers of this lunacy say when their superiors said "why don't we just use planes"?

yankee451 4th January 2020 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX (Post 12943209)
It's from Purdue, so Yankee and his ilk will reject it out of hand. :rolleyes:


If I was caught lying in court, all of my testimony would be considered suspect. Purdue's Scientific Cartoon depicted the jet wing slicing completely through the steel. How could they have missed this evidence?

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...2-1024x629.png

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...d-1024x576.png

Norman Alexander 4th January 2020 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943421)
Nope, I completely got the point. A snowball thrown against a pane of glass is nothing like a 767 slicing through parallel steel box columns. Dude.

Actually it is. Soft object hits hard object at speed.

Go throw. Dood.

yankee451 4th January 2020 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12943425)
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

But your thinking the impact damage looks a bit fishy does not make it impossible. And having rejected what thousands upon thousands of people saw with their own eyes, you have substituted an impossible attack with non-existent weapons and a hand wave about some kind of cover up operation which itself is quite clearly absurd and not remotely plausible.

Still you keep batting away the obvious: what did the proposers of this lunacy say when their superiors said "why don't we just use planes"?

No. The evidence doesn't change. Any explanation that also doesn't include an explanation for the dented cladding, which I contend is proof enough that it wasn't caused by a jet wing, and the sharply bent steel, is what you're referring to as hand waving.

I have explained ad nausea that if jets could do that, they probably would have used them. But because they can't do that, they chose to use what could do it. Log that in.

yankee451 4th January 2020 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander (Post 12943445)
Actually it is. Soft object hits hard object at speed.

Go throw. Dood.

You first. Throw a snowball against a steel box column. Really hard.

The ignorance on this board is breathtaking.

Axxman300 4th January 2020 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943301)
You mean, IF airliners were designed for penetrating hardened targets (like missiles ARE), then why wouldn't they have produced the same damage? Well IF that was the case (it ISN'T), then I guess to be able to create the same damage they would have to have impacted at the same angle of attack, speed, and trajectory. Which they didn't.

The Twin Towers were not "Hardened Targets".

Jack by the hedge 4th January 2020 06:12 PM

What about the eyewitnesses? People who saw the second plane. Locals, tourists, folk living miles away who had a view of Manhattan. Why do they think they saw a plane? Why do they *not* think they saw multiple missiles? How were they brainwashed so quickly, thoroughly and permanently? Have you ever heard of a brainwashing system which could do that? Anything even remotely like it? Any research which hinted such a thing might even hypothetically be developable?

yankee451 4th January 2020 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12943459)
The Twin Towers were not "Hardened Targets".

Therefore, the bunker busters wouldn't need to use gravity to punch through concrete, and could instead be used to bend steel columns sharply.

yankee451 4th January 2020 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12943460)
What about the eyewitnesses? People who saw the second plane. Locals, tourists, folk living miles away who had a view of Manhattan. Why do they think they saw a plane? Why do they *not* think they saw multiple missiles? How were they brainwashed so quickly, thoroughly and permanently? Have you ever heard of a brainwashing system which could do that? Anything even remotely like it? Any research which hinted such a thing might even hypothetically be developable?


What about them?

Quote:

This is the only way they could create the illusion on live television, by not showing the impact. Instead they showed us a jet animation flying behind the towers, followed by the explosion. They then employed well-worn propaganda techniques and repeatedly bombarded us with footage of planes hitting the towers, to the point where we believed we saw it all “live.” But it isn’t so, explained brilliantly (albeit with terrible audio), by the late Gerard Holmgren, here, as well as in this article, “Why They Didn’t Use Planes.”

Furthermore, all the videos of the plane impacts show anomalies that indicate they are fraudulent, every one. Comparatively though, all the images and videos of the explosion (AFTER the impact) are consistent from video to video and photo to photo, which to me is another critical clue. If as the evidence indicates the videos of the plane-approaches and impacts are phony, but the videos of the explosions are real, then it stands to reason they stitched together the fake video with the real video at the point between where the last of the plane entered the building, and the point when the fireball erupted. This explains why the planes penetrated fully before they exploded. Being just a video layer of a plane it would have overlapped the live explosion layer, which would have immediately exposed the fraud. For their ruse to work the explosion had to be real. Since all eyes were on the north face of the North tower, how many “real” amateurs would have been training their cameras on the south face of the South Tower when flight 175 struck? Any real witness that caught a photo or video of the explosion would be able to verify their images with the images of the explosions in the public record, and would simply assume they missed the plane. But even if someone did see what really happened, and still didn’t get the clue that the authorities were at fault, where would that someone turn if they wanted to report it?

To the police that planted the plane parts?
To the fire department that set fire to the cars?
To the media that broadcast fraudulent video?
To the government that was about to declare war on the world?

Even if they did report the truth, why would the authorities tell we the people when they were selling us a terrorist attack?
https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-...e-shaped-hole/


Dr.Sid 4th January 2020 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943455)
You first. Throw a snowball against a steel box column. Really hard.

The ignorance on this board is breathtaking.

:D

Jack by the hedge 4th January 2020 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943450)
No. The evidence doesn't change. Any explanation that also doesn't include an explanation for the dented cladding, which I contend is proof enough that it wasn't caused by a jet wing, and the sharply bent steel, is what you're referring to as hand waving.



I have explained ad nausea that if jets could do that, they probably would have used them. But because they can't do that, they chose to use what could do it. Log that in.

And this is why you fail. You contend that the villains deliberately selected weapons to fake plane impact damage based on their expectation that the damage caused would not resemble plane damage. Can you see the flaw there?

When we eliminate the impossible what remains is that you're not as good at analysing plane crashes as you think. And that's all.

Jack by the hedge 4th January 2020 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943468)
What about them?

They saw the plane. Not your fantasy.

yankee451 4th January 2020 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12943472)
And this is why you fail. You contend that the villains deliberately selected weapons to fake plane impact damage based on their expectation that the damage caused would not resemble plane damage. Can you see the flaw there?

When we eliminate the impossible what remains is that you're not as good at analysing plane crashes as you think. And that's all.

I'm not failing. The reactions are a clue that I'm spot on.

yankee451 4th January 2020 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12943477)
They saw the plane. Not your fantasy.

Prior to the "live" footage of 175, most of the reports were that anything BUT a large jet struck. Only one person who happened to be an executive for CNN reported seeing a large jet. Everyone else reported seeing no planes (bombs) missiles, or small planes. So I guess they were all fantasizing.

Jack by the hedge 4th January 2020 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943486)
Prior to the "live" footage of 175, most of the reports were that anything BUT a large jet struck. Only one person who happened to be an executive for CNN reported seeing a large jet. Everyone else reported seeing no planes (bombs) missiles, or small planes. So I guess they were all fantasizing.

Why are you talking about TV reports? I'm talking about eyewitnesses.

How were they all brainwashed so that till this day they think they saw a plane?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:07 AM.

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