Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 13023639)

All you have to do is link to the posts in which you answered my questions.
That's it.
Simples.
And yet......

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13026798)

I'm pretty sure I already have, but for kicks, would you please repeat the questions?

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 12948177)

Have you got any evidence of missiles?
For example: pieces of debris, radar tracking of missiles, specifics about where these missiles were fired from, specifics of who fired them, whistleblower statements from anyone involved in any part of the transport, launching or clean-up operations, inventory lists showing missing missiles....anything?

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 12951502)

yankee451: is it your contention that the missiles were fired from the Woolworth Building?

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 12951612)

...you are quoting witnesses to support your theory, when you don't agree with what they said they witnessed.
Can you explain this?

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 12952288)

I did as you asked. I found repeated posts of a photo showing inward-bending damage, and none of outward buckling or damage, which is what I would expect if multiple missiles had exploded inside the building.
You still do not seem to have explained this apparent anomaly.
Care to try again?
By the way, how many missiles do you think were fired? I assume you have a fairly exact number.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 12952466)

Just to be clear: these are the videos and photos you claim have been digitally altered, right?
Can you explain why, if there were missiles, the faked images and videos were altered to highlight this, rather than hide it?

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 12954702)

Unsurprisingly, this does not answer my question.
You claim the images and videos were altered to mask the missiles.
You are using the same images to prove that missiles were used.
Why would the Evil Them not alter the images to show damage from a plane, instead of leaving in damage that an unqualified amateur like you can easily spot?
Not much of an Evil Plan, is it?

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 12954703)

Citation needed. You have claimed this several times. Please list the witnesses whose testimony changed, along with evidence that 'TVs were shoved in their faces' to make this happen.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 12966991)

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 12969126)

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 12954703)

Arrows on a photo are not physical evidence.

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 13026910)

I am deleting ISF from my favourites and will not put it back until I am sure this idiotic thread is dead.

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain (Post 13027201)

That's a bit drastic. You have available to you options to put the thread on ignore, put yankee451 on ignore, and unsubscribe from the thread.

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13026914)

Oh please allow me...

January 9, 2020



January 13, 2020



January 13, 2020



January 13, 2020



January 14, 2020



January 15, 2020



January 15, 2020



January 26, 2020



January 28, 2020


Oh, and yankee451, when you are considering your answers (yeah right) don't forget that




And neither are links to froot loopy, bat-**** crazy conspiracy theory websites (including your own)

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13027577)

Yep, deja vu, deja respondez...

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13027577)

Yep, deja vu, deja respondez...

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13027577)

Yep, deja vu, deja respondez...

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13027577)

Yep, deja vu, deja respondez...

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 13023639)

All you have to do is link to the posts in which you answered my questions.
That's it.
Simples.
And yet......

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13027577)

Yep, deja vu, deja respondez...

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13027577)

Yep, deja vu, deja respondez...

Originally Posted by Sabretooth (Post 13028804)

Responding with a snide little comment does not constitute an actual answer to a question.

That being said, you've never addressed a single word that I've asked of you, snidely or otherwise.

This entire thread is no different than any other 9/11 thread in this entire forum. You're just like every other failed poster...coming in here to troll people with completely inadequate and loony theories. You'd think after nearly 20 years, you folks would tire of the childish nonsense.

Originally Posted by Steve (Post 13028824)

There is a thread here on the Kennedy assassination that flares up occasionally. 20 years is nothing when you know the TRUTH. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 13029437)

FTFY

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13027577)

Yep, deja vu, deja respondez...

Originally Posted by Leftus (Post 13030598)

Run away from the truth you want, it only goes to support the fact that it was Rodan, and you've got nothing.

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 13030752)

To any reasonable person for sure, to CTs, they have the TRUTH. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13027980)

Nope, not even close.

Simply handwaving my post away does not mean you have answered the questions therein (apart from one, according to CY, concerning the Woolworth Building, but then you still use the testimony of those alleged witness depite the fact that you disbelieve them.... :boggled:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12939514)

I like jokes. That's why I'm here.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13031576)

Answered thousands of posts ago. You've got nothing but time now. You'll find them if you scroll back.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13031576)

Answered thousands of posts ago. You've got nothing but time now. You'll find them if you scroll back.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 13023639)

All you have to do is link to the posts in which you answered my questions.
That's it.
Simples.
And yet......

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 12967974)

This is a great example of how so many CT-ists are so desperate to refute any and all questioning of their pet theories that they forget what they were actually arguing for.
yankee451: You said there were holes big enough for a missile to pass through. I noticed that a 14-inch-wide missile could not pass through a 14-inch-wide hole without getting jammed.
You responded with a link explaining how a missile would not need a hole, because it could blast its own way through.
You are therefore arguing against yourself, and also inadvertently destroying your whole theory.
Please highlight the 'clean exit hole' your own link says the missile would make, and then explain why you have been arguing that a missile passed through a hole, thus proving that it was a missile and not a plane, when your own link says that won't happen.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13031576)

Answered thousands of posts ago. You've got nothing but time now. You'll find them if you scroll back.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13031576)

Answered thousands of posts ago. You've got nothing but time now. You'll find them if you scroll back.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13031576)

Answered thousands of posts ago. You've got nothing but time now. You'll find them if you scroll back.

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 13032180)

All your "answers" are the same thing: "I don't want to talk about that, I want to talk about this photo I've misinterpreted".

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13035984)

Forget the tower crap, let's talk about something important. Is "respondez" a real French word, and if it were would it be in the right case to follow "deja?" I stopped studying French in 1965 but it still looked wrong at the start.

Flammarions at 50 paces, gentlemen!

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 13036045)

The CIA weaponised the original (some would say, French) spelling ('repondez') to make members of the "Truth Movement" look silly.

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13035984)

Forget the tower crap, let's talk about something important. Is "respondez" a real French word, and if it were would it be in the right case to follow "deja?"

Originally Posted by Athyrio (Post 13031647)

Completely understood. If there was ever any compensated shill hired to make the 9/11 deniers look like total fools or to divide them into separate orbits, then you win that Oscar.

I salute you, sir, for your efforts and trust you had a fun time doing it. I like those jokes too.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13038885)

Ohhh, the "Shill" card. Proof positive you don't have a leg to stand on.

Originally Posted by Nay_Sayer (Post 13038889)

Ok shill, I'm convinced of one you aren't.

1000% ;)

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13038923)

Okay, Genius. Who, or what, am I shilling for?

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13038923)

Okay, Genius. Who, or what, am I shilling for?

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13038923)

Okay, Genius. Who, or what, am I shilling for?

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13031576)

Answered thousands of posts ago. You've got nothing but time now. You'll find them if you scroll back.