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)

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?

yankee451 4th January 2020 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12943495)
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?

I'm talking about the record of eye witness reports that came in during the 18 minutes between the first explosion in the north tower, and the second explosion in the south tower. I have explained it, and provided links to even more explanations. Most of the reports during that 18 minute period were that people saw missiles or small planes. Until the TELEVISION reported a big plane, everyone but one CNN exec reported small planes, missiles, and bombs. According to your own logic that makes the TELEVISION believers the brainwashed ones.

Jack by the hedge 4th January 2020 06:46 PM

The first 18 minutes? What about the next 18 years?

Are you claiming that the initial confused reports from a developing situation are typically accurate and reliable? Have you ever followed a developing news story? It seems unlikely.

Tell me how you think the eyewitnesses were all got at. Can you think of any plausible way the plotters could hope to suppress every photo and video from cameras being pointed at the towers from miles around after the first crash?

No. Its absurd.

AJM8125 4th January 2020 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943320)
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:

Not so fast, Steve.

First, you'll need to explain away the existence of four great ******* airliners, their passengers and crew, their families and the thousands upon thousands of eyewitnesses who saw their demise. With their own eyes.

Please proceed.

Axxman300 4th January 2020 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943405)
You could be right. Alas, the evidence supports my conclusions, not yours.

No.

None of the evidence supports any of your ludicrous claims. You ineptitude begs the question of how much time you have spent in the real world in any meaningful way.

These are the facts:

On September 11th, 2001, 19 Al Qaeda operatives hijacked 4 commercial jetliners and used them as missiles to strike both towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon while the last plan was scuttled during a passenger revolt.

As a result of the attacks the US invaded Afghanistan and then later Iraq. Afghanistan was where bin Laden and Al Qaeda was based. Iraq was a mistake based on a not very bright President being pushed into a war driven by right-wing ideologues. Our inability to leave either country is due to a long list of reasons which receive very little debate in this country.

Your claims of CGI aircraft do not hold up to the 500,000+ eye witnesses in Manhattan that day. The missiles you claim were used were not operational and the prototypes are all accounted for, in fact all tactical air-to-ground missiles were accounted for on 9/12/2001. Your claim that these attacks were faked in order to get us into a war is wrought with inconsistencies the biggest one being that if the US Government was willing to go to such unrealistic lengths to fake an attack in the largest city on the eastern seaboard then they would have also PLANTED WMD'S IN IRAQ TO BE "FOUND" BY OUR INVASION FORCES.

That you claim not to understand the damage in the photographs is your failure, not ours. As usual a few members here have been willing to explain the mechanics behind the damage caused by the 767's wings only to have them dismissed with no counter explanation conducted at the same intellectual level. All we get from you is a glorified "Nah ah," and nothing of substance...if you respond at all. You dodge more posts than you respond to which suggests that you know you're trolling us with a BS claim.

Axxman300 4th January 2020 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943461)
Therefore, the bunker busters wouldn't need to use gravity to punch through concrete, and could instead be used to bend steel columns sharply.

No, therefore a pair of 767's moving at 500mph caused the damage to each tower.

The fireball was jet fuel, missiles don't carry that much.

A 1,000 pound warhead would have done far more damage than the airliners did and they would have heard the blast in New Jersey.

Throw in the fact that they could get the AGM-158 JASSM to work reliably until 2009 and you're left with a big nothing here.

Here's a cool video of the AGM-158 in action:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ5xoJfqXA4

Doesn't look anything like 9-11.

Norman Alexander 4th January 2020 07:38 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.

Soft versus hard at speed. Read it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia

JSanderO 4th January 2020 07:42 PM

A few things

The box columns at the level the plane hit tower 1 had 2 flanges of 1/2" plate connected to 3 webs of 1/4" steel. The OAL dimension was 13 1/2" x 14"... but the box column was hollow and 90% air.

These columns would not do well against a 500 mph impact of a wing, a pressurized cabin, and aluminum structure of an air frame, landing gear, tanks full of liquid, or engines and assorted actuators/motors.

second the photos you use were taken AFTER the damage and collapsing interior structure had impacted the facade... collapsing slabs and so on.

Norman Alexander 4th January 2020 07:42 PM

And i will ask Yankee again: What evidence WOULD you accept that your notions are mistaken and you are wrong? What would convince you?

MattNelson 4th January 2020 07:56 PM

"police that planted the plane parts..." :eek:

Talk about impossible. I made a PDF lullaby for your theory (49MB): "Airplane Debris, WTC 9/11." I posted a link and more on p. 4 of this thread with no response from you.

It was not possible for NBC Chopper4 to do a live CGI. That's why Ace Baker never considered it a live shot (8 live shots, total). That's why some no-planer troll flagged my video on the subject and got it taken down.

Will you be able to handle it when you find out you are wrong? What will you do then? Do you have any other hobbies? I recommend reading all of Robert Jordan's books before the TV show comes out on Amazon. It's about 4 million words of epic fantasy. Enjoy.

FFTR 4th January 2020 08:48 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.

Clear this one up for me.
Jeff Prager claims WTC1 and 2 were destroyed with mini neutron bombs and no nanothermite. Gage (AE911T) claims they were destroyed using nanothermite and conventional explosives and no nukes. Who is correct?

It is interesting that AE911T does not support missiles being used to destroy the WTC buildings. Gage, Jones have admitted the buildings were struck by the jets, but is was controlled demolition that took down the buildings. Are you saying they are not telling the truth?

Please provide a link to the one concise alternative explanation regarding 9/11 that is supported by the evidence. Seems there are many authors all claiming to be correct.

yankee451 4th January 2020 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander (Post 12943575)
And i will ask Yankee again: What evidence WOULD you accept that your notions are mistaken and you are wrong? What would convince you?

A better explanation for the lightly damaged cladding and the sharp, lateral bends to the steel. It would be refreshing to even discuss it.

Thus far, the skeptics have been wrong about the crashes being broadcast live, wrong about where the engine allegedly impacted, wrong about the claim that only the bolted connections were broken, and very wrong about the assumed "thousands of witnesses."

So you tell me. What more will it take to convince you that you might be mistaken?

yankee451 4th January 2020 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FFTR (Post 12943624)
Clear this one up for me.
Jeff Prager claims WTC1 and 2 were destroyed with mini neutron bombs and no nanothermite. Gage (AE911T) claims they were destroyed using nanothermite and conventional explosives and no nukes. Who is correct?

It is interesting that AE911T does not support missiles being used to destroy the WTC buildings. Gage, Jones have admitted the buildings were struck by the jets, but is was controlled demolition that took down the buildings. Are you saying they are not telling the truth?

Please provide a link to the one concise alternative explanation regarding 9/11 that is supported by the evidence. Seems there are many authors all claiming to be correct.

This thread is about the video layering used to mask the missile strikes used to cut the holes in the towers. The missiles were not responsible for the destruction of the towers, nor even for the shock and awe fireballs; they were only used to cut the holes.

yankee451 4th January 2020 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FFTR (Post 12943624)
Clear this one up for me.
Jeff Prager claims WTC1 and 2 were destroyed with mini neutron bombs and no nanothermite. Gage (AE911T) claims they were destroyed using nanothermite and conventional explosives and no nukes. Who is correct?

It is interesting that AE911T does not support missiles being used to destroy the WTC buildings. Gage, Jones have admitted the buildings were struck by the jets, but is was controlled demolition that took down the buildings. Are you saying they are not telling the truth?

Please provide a link to the one concise alternative explanation regarding 9/11 that is supported by the evidence. Seems there are many authors all claiming to be correct.

It is a long story that I have tried to make as concise as possible, but if you want an alternative explanation that fits all the evidence, see below.

How the holes were cut.
How the videos were faked.
How the towers were destroyed.

Also:
Background of the architect, Yamasaki. Deep ties to the CIA and the defense industry.
The shady background of the WTC and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
Who Knew What When? The New York City Cover-Up

yankee451 4th January 2020 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12943521)
Not so fast, Steve.

First, you'll need to explain away the existence of four great ******* airliners, their passengers and crew, their families and the thousands upon thousands of eyewitnesses who saw their demise. With their own eyes.

Please proceed.

One assumption on top of another. You know what you do to yourself when you assume.

Axxman300 4th January 2020 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943663)

Those are all links to your webpage. How about a link to a source not mentally ill?

yankee451 4th January 2020 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattNelson (Post 12943590)
"police that planted the plane parts..." :eek:

Talk about impossible. I made a PDF lullaby for your theory (49MB): "Airplane Debris, WTC 9/11." I posted a link and more on p. 4 of this thread with no response from you.

It was not possible for NBC Chopper4 to do a live CGI. That's why Ace Baker never considered it a live shot (8 live shots, total). That's why some no-planer troll flagged my video on the subject and got it taken down.

Will you be able to handle it when you find out you are wrong? What will you do then? Do you have any other hobbies? I recommend reading all of Robert Jordan's books before the TV show comes out on Amazon. It's about 4 million words of epic fantasy. Enjoy.

Live footage is never live. For the Chopper 4 shot all they had to do was practice their shot from the same position. It would be no sweat to rehearse the footage for the explosion shot, and to create a CGI animation of a plane with a transparent background (or whatever that blurry mess was), so as to have the animation layer ready to go and matching the perspective they would capture the live explosion from. Easy peasy, and really the only way they could pull it off on "live" television (by not showing the crash).

yankee451 4th January 2020 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12943667)
Those are all links to your webpage. How about a link to a source not mentally ill?

“The thing about smart people is that they seem like crazy people to dumb people.”

― Stephen Hawking

smartcooky 4th January 2020 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943647)
A better explanation for the lightly damaged cladding and the sharp, lateral bends to the steel. It would be refreshing to even discuss it.

The explanations you have been given been better reasoned from an engineering and scientific standpoint than the harebrained stuff you are making up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943647)
Thus far, the skeptics have been wrong about the crashes being broadcast live....

The second crash was broadcast live. You might have a pet theory as to how you THINK it might have been live-faked, but you have not provided a single piece of evidence that it was. Its not enough to just say how you think it was done, you have to prove it by providing evidence... "it doesn't look right to me" is not evidence. Have you be able to detect mismatched alpha channels or opacity levels? Can you show me examples of where the compositor has got the scaling wrong? How about keying; have you found anywhere that the composite keying looks off. Show me some original video with those kinds of detectable flaws and you might have the beginning of some evidence to support your claims. Until then, you have got a big, fat nothingburger.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943647)
wrong about where the engine allegedly impacted

Only wrong your YOUR opinion

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943647)
wrong about the claim that only the bolted connections were broken

That is a misrepresentation of the claim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943647)
and very wrong about the assumed "thousands of witnesses."

Nope. There were literally thousands of witness to the south tower impact, and to the Pentagon impact.


Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943647)
So you tell me. What more will it take to convince you that you might be mistaken?

A whole lot more that the unmitigated dross you are serving up here.

smartcooky 4th January 2020 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943680)
“The thing about smart people is that they seem like crazy people to dumb people.”

― Stephen Hawking

Well that explains why you think we are crazy!

yankee451 4th January 2020 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12943682)
The explanations you have been given been better reasoned from an engineering and scientific standpoint than the harebrained stuff you are making up.

Your projections are noted. I work with a couple of engineers who might disagree with you. I'm happy to discuss the lightly bent cladding and the sharply bent steel with anyone, especially engineers and physicists. If my conclusions are wrong then they'll be able to provide a better one. Good luck finding one who isn't as threatened by the facts as you are.


Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12943682)
The second crash was broadcast live.

False. The crash was not broadcast live. What was shown was a plane (allegedly) which flew behind the towers, followed by the explosion. Every single "live" shot showed the NORTH FACE of the NORTH TOWER. Flight 175 allegedly flew into the SOUTH FACE of the SOUTH TOWER. Therefore, you're wrong. Still.


Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12943682)
You might have a pet theory as to how you THINK it might have been live-faked, but you have not provided a single piece of evidence that it was.

Other than the facts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12943682)
Its not enough to just say how you think it was done, you have to prove it by providing evidence... "it doesn't look right to me" is not evidence. Have you be able to detect mismatched alpha channels or opacity levels? Can you show me examples of where the compositor has got the scaling wrong? How about keying; have you found anywhere that the composite keying looks off. Show me some original video with those kinds of detectable flaws and you might have the beginning of some evidence to support your claims. Until then, you have got a big, fat nothingburger.

I have explained how it was done and have provided corroborating evidence to support it. That you choose to ignore it isn't my fault.



Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12943682)
Nope. There were literally thousands of witness to the south tower impact, and to the Pentagon impact.




A whole lot more that the unmitigated dross you are serving up here.

As the damage evidence shows, the there were no witnesses to a plane crash at the WTC, nor at the Pentagon. The assumption that there were thousands of witnesses doesn't change the damage evidence that says otherwise. And you're ignoring all the witness accounts who claimed to have seen small planes, missiles and bombs going off. The denial is strong with this one.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:50 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.