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)

Deadie 18th January 2020 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958410)
Easily faked.

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

yankee451 18th January 2020 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattNelson (Post 12958400)
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)

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:

Quote:

All it takes is to scratch the surface of 9/11 to realize just about everything peddled about that fateful day was and is indeed, “fake,” but it’s not just the authorities pushing fake news, even the 9/11 Truth Movement prefers fake truth rather than the real thing. In reality the rank and file within the truth movement seem quite content with the belief that the truth will never be known, which makes me wonder why they call it a truth movement in the first place.

In my 15-minute video “What cut the plane shaped hole” I discussed some of the evidence the truth movement ignores but in retrospect I should have named it, “What couldn’t have cut the plane shaped hole?,” because I focus on evidence that eliminates planes as well as planted explosives alone (and by extension “holograms”) as being responsible. As a followup to that video in this post I will explore what could have caused it, but first I should note that the information referenced herein is available to anyone with Internet access, so it is disappointing to learn nobody in the 9/11 Truth Movement has already investigated it. In fact truthers and true believers alike still treat it as if it doesn’t exist. Usually when confronted with this information they very quickly turn on me by questioning my motives, sanity and intelligence, but rarely do they address the evidence that leads me to my conclusions. If this was a real crime scene investigation the act of “reconstructing the crime” would be critical; every clue, no matter how small, would be collected and used as a basis for the formulation of a theory. But truthers don’t do that. They skip right to the theory and then look for supporting evidence, ignoring those clues that don’t fit, an activity known as, “cherry-picking,” not “truth-seeking.”

If you’re like me and just want to follow the evidence wherever it leads then the details discussed in this post can lead directly to the most likely cause and the most likely suspects. If I’m wrong then there must be a better explanation for it and I want to hear what that is but so far the response has been silence. It is as the late Harold Pinter described how Americans react when they hear “real news” about all the atrocities committed by the USA around the world since the end of World War II:

“It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.”

It is this hypnosis that has kept the war on terror going strong, with both sides so entranced they will reject the evidence that can lead to the truth in favor of fantastical explanations straight out of Gene Roddenberry’s imagination. The truth is, no, planes can’t slice steel and no, buildings don’t turn to dust in the real world. For 16 years both sides (all sides) have bent over backwards to avoid the first step in any investigation; the scene of the crime, probably partly because it makes most of the truth movement’s hypotheses irrelevant, but also because of the staggering implications that accompany it.

Years ago a friend warned me that even if I did discover the truth about 9/11 nobody will give a damn, a prescient prediction. Not that I’m saying I’m right, but I have done my best to keep myself honest in my investigation, and although I am often wrong, I am also often not wrong. All I can say is, the fact that no one will address these clues is exactly what I would expect from controlled opposition if I did stumble on the right path.
https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-...e-shaped-hole/

yankee451 18th January 2020 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadie (Post 12958414)
You need to explain exactly how. Like, in rather great detail.

Have you read the OP?

Deadie 18th January 2020 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958419)
and the progressively worse damaged steel, bent in a completely different direction than the television jet was traveling, is the evidence I refer to.

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958420)
Have you read the OP?

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.

yankee451 18th January 2020 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadie (Post 12958430)
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?

I can't speak for them.

Crazy Chainsaw 18th January 2020 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958410)
Easily faked.

How explain as they were beyond the Cameras white Balance?

yankee451 18th January 2020 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadie (Post 12958430)
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.

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.


Quote:

Before they can “splice and dice” looped footage, they must first capture the footage. By not broadcasting the crash live it bought time to capture the footage of what actually cut the holes in the towers, to edit it out and then edit-in a plane. This edited version was then released as “amateur” footage which depicts a mostly hollow aluminum jet sliding like butter into a steel skyscraper.
What we think of as “live” television is not live. There is always a broadcast delay of as many seconds as are required for someone to be able to react in time to cut to a commercial. In this way the networks prevent unwanted content from airing.
https://911crashtest.org/pulling-the...-of-the-world/
Quote:

To accomplish this feat they had to use tripods to first capture footage of the undamaged towers, from the exact same location as they would capture the fireball. They used the footage of the undamaged tower as their “mask layer,” like a curtain to hang in front of the live footage of the real tower. Once the real footage was hidden behind the mask layer curtain, the holes in the tower could be cut, and only when that was accomplished could the mask layer be removed, exposing the damage. The plane was just another layer on top of the mask layer, both of which, the “undamaged tower” layer and the “plane” layer, were hanging in front of the real layer, giving the audience something to look at while the real hole was being cut. After the plane layer melted into the undamaged tower layer (accompanied by drawn-on smoke), they faded away the layer of the undamaged tower, to expose the live footage of the real tower behind it. From that point forward, it was a real-time play. The plane didn’t crumple and explode on impact because it was nearly impossible to create a convincing 3D animation that could be shown from multiple angles; they were limited to using what 2D means they had, and that was layer masking.https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-...e-shaped-hole/

Deadie 18th January 2020 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958447)
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?

MattNelson 18th January 2020 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958419)
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:

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

Crazy Chainsaw 18th January 2020 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadie (Post 12958458)
Yet they were too stupid to have the airplane flying in the correct direction?

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.

yankee451 18th January 2020 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadie (Post 12958458)
Yet they were too stupid to have the airplane flying in the correct direction?

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

yankee451 18th January 2020 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattNelson (Post 12958466)
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

Still a circular argument.

Quote:

Why this evidence is ignored by the truth movement should be obvious; because it eliminates most of their arguments. Many truthers have books to sell and everyone has a donation button. Over the years The Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth has collected millions of dollars in donations from concerned truth seekers who believe they are helping to expose the truth, when in fact they are suppressing it and funding Richard Gage’s $85K annual salary . Judy Wood, Richard Gage, Rob Balsamo, Christopher Bollyn and the list goes on all refuse to address this evidence because there is only one explanation for it, and that explanation isn’t a part of what they’re selling.

This off-limits evidence eliminates all the videos of the plane impacts as genuine in one fell swoop, and it exposes as false prophets in a bogus movement those who refuse to address it.
For too many years the veracity of the videos has been debated; whether or not they were all faked or if only some of them were faked or if none of them were faked, despite the evidence that answers that question definitively. Could it be that wasting time has always been the goal of the 9/11 Truth Movement? I ask because had they begun their investigations at the beginning by examining the scene of the crime, they could have cut to the chase on September 12th, 2001, and avoided a decade and a half of the silliness we were given.

Personally I think the biggest reason the truth movement avoids the truth is because to acknowledge it would be to acknowledge all the world’s media are complicit. Very quickly after that comes a paradigm-shift of awareness, followed by inevitable soul-crushing depression, and for those who make it out of that phase they can look forward to losing faith in authority, as well as in society, followed by being labeled as crazy and outcast by friends and family; ending up with generally being a stranger in a strange land. I don’t blame people for not “going there;” who would want to put themselves through that?
Nonetheless you can’t call yourself a truther if you avoid clues that discredit your argument. The truth is what it is; if your hypothesis doesn’t account for the evidence at the scene of the crime then you need to head back to the drawing board.


I shouldn’t need to address any of the video evidence at this point; the damage evidence mentioned above is enough to discredit all of the jet impacts all at once. How they faked them is irrelevant and beside the point of what the impact evidence shows. It doesn’t matter how many “official story” witnesses or how many “amateur” videos they trot out, their claims don’t change the evidence of lateral impacts from small projectiles.
https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-...e-shaped-hole/

yankee451 18th January 2020 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 12958468)
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.

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.

Robin 18th January 2020 12:38 PM

[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.

Axxman300 18th January 2020 12:42 PM

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

MattNelson 18th January 2020 12:42 PM

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.

yankee451 18th January 2020 12:48 PM

[quote=Robin;12958488]
Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 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.

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.

yankee451 18th January 2020 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattNelson (Post 12958492)
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.

You shouldn't.

Quote:

The reality is I can only be sure about me.* I know I’m not on anyone’s payroll, but when I examined the evidence I came to a completely different conclusion than the rest of the truth movement.* Nobody should take my word for anything; I urge everyone to scrutinize my research, and conclusions, carefully, and I wish the leaders of the truth movement would say the same.* None of us should take at face value any claim without first examining the evidence for ourselves, but we have been too busy raising families, and living our lives, to afford more than a cursory glance at 9/11.* Sorting through the dead-end clues, and false leads, requires a time commitment most of us aren’t prepared for.* The fact is very few people are able to do any research at all, so we trust other people to bring us the truth; something we have been trained to do since we were old enough to read the news in the daily papers.* We aren’t immortal beings with endless time, so more often than not; the way we arrive at ‘the truth’ is to believe whatever suits us.

This explains why truthers almost never consider the best way to control the opposition is by leading it.* It also illustrates why it is so difficult for us to recognize that the leaders of the opposition are more interested in keeping us occupied with red-herrings and infighting, while the war machine marches on, than they are with exposing the lies that started the wars to begin with.

We’re lying to ourselves.* You know whether or not you’re being honest in your investigation, and you know how to verify whether or not the leader you’re following is being honest, too.* Since grade school, we were taught the best way to acquire knowledge is by using the scientific method, and it is long past time for the 9/11 Truth Movement to apply it to 9/11, to prove, or disprove, something; anything.* Anyone that sincerely wants the truth needs to examine whatever 9/11 hypothesis they’re attached to, and ask themselves if it can withstand such scrutiny.* If it can’t then it can’t be the truth.
https://911crashtest.org/greetings-from-steve-deak/

yankee451 18th January 2020 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12958490)
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



Quote:

Finding the truth, the actual truth, about what happened that day, is almost impossible by following the work of the truth movement. The leaders will simply ignore evidence that contradicts their arguments and carry on like they never saw it. They then publicly argue among themselves, as if only their hypotheses carry any weight, while pointing a hypocritical finger at each other (and everyone else), for being a spy. I am no expert, but this is exactly what I would expect from false prophets in a bogus peace movement; I suspect this is what controlled opposition looks like.

By now it should be obvious exposing the truth was never the goal; that their intent all along was to divide and conquer us. Good propaganda always targets emotion, not reason, which reveals why truth seekers are often angered when someone challenges whatever it is we believe happened on 9/11, because we are emotionally attached to it. But the truth is what it is, whether or not it agrees with us, or with what the 9/11 Truth Movement is selling. If the Truth is the goal, it should be a threat to nobody, or as Flannery O’Connor put it, “The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it emotionally.”
https://911crashtest.org/greetings-from-steve-deak/

Deadie 18th January 2020 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958480)
No, they probably know you'll believe the television, and defer to the authorities, rather than rub two pieces of gray matter together.

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.

Elagabalus 18th January 2020 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12958490)
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


Indeed.


https://i.imgur.com/GwcFnDe.png


Stolen with love from halleyscomet. See page 59 of the TTORWBTFAI thread.

yankee451 18th January 2020 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadie (Post 12958511)
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.

You do understand what a circular argument is, right? The story of thousands of witnesses to an event that didn't occur, can only mean one thing; there were not thousands of witnesses.

Deadie 18th January 2020 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958515)
You do understand what a circular argument is, right? The story of thousands of witnesses to an event that didn't occur, can only mean one thing; there were not thousands of witnesses.

IN LOWER MANHATTEN AT 8:30 ON AN OTHERWISE NORMAL TUESDAY MORNING?!?!?!

Have you been to NYC ever? It's not a small new england fishing village anymore.

Elagabalus 18th January 2020 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958515)
You do understand what a circular argument is, right? The story of thousands of witnesses to an event that didn't occur, can only mean one thing; there were not thousands of witnesses.

Is that your circular argument or his?

yankee451 18th January 2020 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadie (Post 12958517)
IN LOWER MANHATTEN AT 8:30 ON AN OTHERWISE NORMAL TUESDAY MORNING?!?!?!

Have you been to NYC ever?

They witnessed small planes, no planes, and missiles. No one ever saw a jet fly through a steel skyscraper, because, as the damage evidence indicates, something else happened.

BStrong 18th January 2020 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957860)
When in Rome...

If that's the case, I'd better address you by your Latin name..

Non Compos Mentis.

yankee451 18th January 2020 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elagabalus (Post 12958520)
Is that your circular argument or his?

His.

My conclusions are based on the lightly damaged aluminum sheeting and the progressively worse damaged steel cladding that was sharply bent in a completely different direction than the CGI jet was traveling.

Deadie 18th January 2020 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958525)
His.

My conclusions are based on the lightly damaged aluminum sheeting and the progressively worse damaged steel cladding that was sharply bent in a completely different direction than the CGI jet was traveling.

And yet you cannot and will not provide any sort of calculation or even speculation as to the amount of damage a hypothetical 767 would have caused had they slammed into the sides of the WTC towers. If you cannot demonstrate this, then we are talking in circles. I asked you to do this 20 pages ago and you refused.

yankee451 18th January 2020 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadie (Post 12958535)
And yet you cannot and will not provide any sort of calculation or even speculation as to the amount of damage a hypothetical 767 would have caused had they slammed into the sides of the WTC towers. If you cannot demonstrate this, then we are talking in circles. I asked you to do this 20 pages ago and you refused.

It's not my claim, that's on you.

MattNelson 18th January 2020 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958523)
They witnessed small planes, no planes, and missiles. No one ever saw a jet fly through a steel skyscraper, because, as the damage evidence indicates, something else happened.

If I took the time to make a video with all the large plane witnesses, would you watch it and listen? No. You would wave your hand.

I did make 2 videos in response to Ace Baker's masterpiece of disinfo "The Great American Psy-Opera." It's flash video on my website, so use Firefox and enable Flash. Watch "'What Planes?' asked Ace Baker." That scratches the surface, yet still may make your hand/arm tired.

If you aren't on any mind-altering substances, maybe you should try one.

yankee451 18th January 2020 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BStrong (Post 12958524)
If that's the case, I'd better address you by your Latin name..

Non Compos Mentis.

Quote:

Usually when confronted with this information they very quickly turn on me by questioning my motives, sanity and intelligence, but rarely do they address the evidence that leads me to my conclusions.
https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-...e-shaped-hole/

Deadie 18th January 2020 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958540)
It's not my claim, that's on you.

Not when you say a 767 could not have caused the damage observed. Math is always the ultimate CT kryptonite and you are a wonderful specimen. Thank you.

beachnut 18th January 2020 01:49 PM

all talk, no evidence
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958137)
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.

In your fantasy world how did they fake the Radar data and all the videos? Details? Nope, you make it up, and are unable to say how all the video and Radar data matches in time. You never talked to anyone who took the videos, and you keep on the BS of it was not live. All the video was live, you don't seem to understand what live means WRT the time it was recorded.

When I take a video of my grandkids, it was taken live, there is no other way to take it. When I show it to you it is video of what was live at the time the video was taken. You mean you did not see it live, but the person taking it saw it/recorded it live.

If you can contact all the people who took the video, it will be discovered it had to live, there is no other reality. All the video was live as shot, you have no valid point to claim it was not live at time shot.

Your lies fail.

Your research sucks, you are not trained investigator, you are a fantasy monger who hates his government and fails to do more than push failed ideas about 9/11.

How did the FAA and NTSB fake the Radar data? You never explained in detail how this works.

How did the FAA and NTSB match the exact time to all the video recorded live? You can't explain the details, because you made up this lie.

Do you understand all video is live when shot? You can't shot video unless you are live.

You never explained how all the video shot live/recorded matches in perspective and time if it was faked. Why can't you give details how the perspectives all match in time and space? Are you a video/photo/perspective expert? NO


Spewing lies about 9/11 will not stop wars. Spewing lies about missiles doing the damage at the WTC on 9/11 only makes people see you are spreading lies about 9/11.

Are you upset we killed UBL? Why do you apologize for 19 terrorists who murdered thousands on 9/11. Right you lie and claim no one died on 9/11. Go ahead, go up to the families and say missiles did it, tape it live/record, and show us what happens when you lie to the people who lost loved ones on 9/11.

Flight 11 and 175 flew into the WTC, you claim it was missiles, and can't produce the physics behind such a fantasy claim. You failed to do the energy of the impacts. Energy of the impacts were equal in energy to 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT. When an aircraft hits with that energy and energy concentrated the shape of the aircraft used, it does exactly the damage seen on video, and in photos. Anyone can figure out the energy, except you.

One study, which you fail to acknowledge, shows the WTC shell can stop an aircraft going 200 to 250 mph. The planes on 9/11 were going faster than what it takes to break the shell of the WTC, and you ignore science and rant about stopping wars, as you LIE and and mock the murder of thousands.

Physics exposes you as a simple liar, too busy spreading lies to do the math and physics. Too busy spreading lies to comprehend studies. Too busy spreading lies and blaming 9/11 on people you can't name, and blaming people without evidence, all in the name to stop wars.

You will not be taken seriously by rational people spreading lies about 9/11, you anti-war effort is ignored because your claims are insane.


The 19 terrorists paid for tickets to fly, and five bucks for knives.

What is the budget for your epic lies about 9/11?
How much does it cost to fake video?
Were the people killed who took the videos that were faked?
How much did all the various videos faked cost to fake and match in time and space as seen? Billions of dollars, or millions?
Who paid off all the witnesses to lie to make your sick fantasy in your mind?
How much does it cost to keep people quiet for all these years?
How do you make the FAA and NTSB fake Radar, FDRs, and more?
How do you fake the recording of the crews phone calls, and ATC tapes of the pilots being killed, and the CVR?
Who paid off the ATC controllers?
How did they fake the fires?
You lie about dust, how much does that cost to fake?
You lies about missiles, what did that cost to do?

It would be cheaper to hire UBL to recruit 19 idiots and hijack aircraft. Your sick fantasy plot you fail to detail, would cost billions, or required thousands to be killed to keep it a secret.

Do you try to use logic and evidence? NO, you look at photos and make up lies.

Cost of 9/11 by 19 terrorists
Room and board
Airline tickets
Flight training
Knives
Most likely less than 500,000 dollars

Cost of your fantasy version, most likely over a 1,000,000,000, Billions.


Things that debunk your demented fantasy of missiles.
1. Video
2. RADAR
3. Eye witnesses you failed to interview
4. No missiles missing or ordered to do your sick fantasy
5. Two Jet Fuel fireballs, exactly like what you get in a ~500 knot impact with 60,000 pounds of jet fuel. This alone debunks your missile fantasy.
6. Jet engine found exactly where it would be after running through the WTC tower.
7. Personal items of people on Flt 11 and 175.
8. DNA from people on the aircraft and in the towers
9. No missile parts found, no engines, no debris.
... everything debunks your lies of missiles and fake video.

Better stick with Bigfoot, you can use the same evidence you have for 9/11, nothing but fantasy.

Shot before a live audience on 9/11. The issue of "live", is BS. I think you got problems with live, which does not help your sick fantasy.

You get banned at blogs and forums because you post nonsense which is based on fantasy, NOT Evidence. You offer BS comments about photos, and what can't happen and you are not an expert, and can't back up your claims with evidence, logic, and science.

What is the purpose of showing the F-4 Crash test into a concrete structure designed to protect a Nuke Reactor, or something needing maximum protection. There is no comparing the F-4 impact to the impact of 757s at the WTC to help your fantasy missile lie. The F-4 crash is great for showing what happens in a high speed impact of an aircraft to show how an aircraft is destroyed and does not look like the landing accidents and other aircraft accidents as slow speed below 250 knots. Similar outcomes from high speed impacts with ground seen in USAF accident reports, leave little trace of what looks like an aircraft.

One of the major problems in your education, is lack of physics. You have a failed idea aluminum aircraft at not worthy of being called mass. You completely ignore the large hole in the WTC where the engines keep going smashing the WTC shell, and the landing gear (one of the strongest object in the aircraft) also broke into the WTC.

The mass of the aircraft which broke the WTC was the "hollow fuselage", engines, landing gear, people, luggage, mail, fuel, engine oil, hydraulic fluid, instruments, radios, and all the other things on the aircraft. The mass of the 757 and contents is what broke the WTC shell at over 500 mph. What is that, over 800 feet a second? The WTC is 207 feet wide, and the aircraft can transverse that distance in ~.26 second, but a little longer when hitting the WTC. Imagine 800 feet per second, go, and in a second the entire plane is 800 feet away. The energy involved does not double with speed, it quadruples. This physics law is what you fail to consider, but your grandkids might take physics and see you spread lies, big dumb lies.

All you do is talk, offering no evidence. No physics, only fantasy and lies.

Crazy Chainsaw 18th January 2020 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958487)
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.

The Oxidation effect on the Aluminum had to have been faked it shows a large Aluminum object impacted it hard enough to cause an Oxidation event.
If they faked the white flashes caused by oxidation of aluminum dust in air then your evidence is faked as well!

yankee451 18th January 2020 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadie (Post 12958544)
Not when you say a 767 could not have caused the damage observed. Math is always the ultimate CT kryptonite and you are a wonderful specimen. Thank you.

Once again, this is on you. No one has provided the math to prove a plane could to it. Ever. You are basing your entire conclusion on the television show, which the evidence I keep pointing to, proves didn't happen. If you want to make a math problem out of it, have at it. You'll be the first.

yankee451 18th January 2020 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 12958548)
The Oxidation effect on the Aluminum had to have been faked it shows a large Aluminum object impacted it hard enough to cause an Oxidation event.
If they faked the white flashes caused by oxidation of aluminum dust in air then your evidence is faked as well!

The impact evidence proves the videos were faked. Using them as proof of something is a circular argument.

BStrong 18th January 2020 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958542)

Sorry NCM, the no planes theory is not based on reality, it's based on poorly written science fiction.

Kind of like an aspiring painter that can't paint the human form.

BStrong 18th January 2020 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958554)
The impact evidence proves the videos were faked. Using them as proof of something is a circular argument.

Talk about projection.

You're whole premise is circular logic.

yankee451 18th January 2020 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BStrong (Post 12958557)
Sorry NCM, the no planes theory is not based on reality, it's based on poorly written science fiction.

Kind of like an aspiring painter that can't paint the human form.

Funny, because from what I can tell, it's been kicking Skeptic butt.

yankee451 18th January 2020 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BStrong (Post 12958558)
Talk about projection.

You're whole premise is circular logic.

How do you figure?

If a plane could do this, you would try to explain it.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...s-1024x640.png


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:31 PM.

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