9/11: How they Faked the Videos

[yankee451]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

I'm still waiting for your proof that the World Trade Center was destroyed. This picture is Photoshopped.

Just playing by your rules.

From The Skeptics Guide

Quote:

Straw Man
A straw man argument attempts to counter a position by attacking a different position – usually one that is easier to counter. The arguer invents a caricature of his opponent’s position – a “straw man” – that is easily refuted, but not the position that his opponent actually holds.

For example, defenders of alternative medicine often argue that skeptics refuse to accept their claims because they conflict with their world-view. If “Western” science cannot explain how a treatment works, then it is dismissed out-of-hand. If you read skeptical treatment of so-called “alternative” modalities, however, you will find the skeptical position much more nuanced than that.

Claims are not a-prior dismissed because they are not currently explained by science. Rather, in some cases (like homeopathy) there is a vast body of scientific knowledge that says that homeopathy is not possible. Having an unknown mechanism is not the same thing as demonstrably impossible (at least as best as modern science can tell). Further, skeptical treatments of homeopathy often thoroughly review the clinical evidence. Even when the question of mechanism is put aside, the evidence shows that homeopathic remedies are indistinguishable from placebo – which means they do not work.https://legacy.theskepticsguide.org/...ical-fallacies

[yankee451]

Originally Posted by Robin

You are claiming that I said it misses the cladding?

When I obviously said and diagrammed that it impacted the cladding, crumpled it, pushed it back but wouldn't necessarily sever it completely?

Again you are lying about what I said.

I guess it bears out the old adage that the person who boasts of his own honesty is usually the most dishonest person in the room

In your creative diagram you ignored the fact that the NIST, FEMA, MIT, et al, and the videos, photos, and the Purdue cartoon, all contradict your explanation. So are you using the evidence to support your conclusion or simply coming up with a conclusion that you imagine could have happened?

[bruto]

I don't think it matters that much what you think the people saw. If there were not thousands of people in a position to see the attacks on a Tuesday morning in downtown New York, as most reasonable people would assume, it's your job to come up with a reasonable explanation of why on that one occasion the default position was different, and if so, why, on that very special day, nobody mentioned the incredible oddity of the situation. Then you can come up with an explanation of what might have motivated them in their entirety to collude with a fake explanation. But first things first. What kept the hordes off the streets?

[yankee451]

Originally Posted by bruto

I don't think it matters that much what you think the people saw. If there were not thousands of people in a position to see the attacks on a Tuesday morning in downtown New York, as most reasonable people would assume, it's your job to come up with a reasonable explanation of why on that one occasion the default position was different, and if so, why, on that very special day, nobody mentioned the incredible oddity of the situation. Then you can come up with an explanation of what might have motivated them in their entirety to collude with a fake explanation. But first things first. What kept the hordes off the streets?

Witnesses reported seeing missiles, small planes, no planes, and a big plane, but the damage evidence doesn't support all of those reports, and considering witness reports are notoriously unreliable, then those that don't fit the damage evidence ought to be considered with that in mind.

If as the damage evidence indicates, cruise missiles were used, then that means the authorities, that provided the radar data, the witness accounts, and the videos of the fake planes, are to blame.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by yankee451

Witnesses reported seeing missiles, small planes, no planes

Name them!

[Elagabalus]

Originally Posted by yankee451

Witnesses reported seeing missiles, small planes, no planes, and a big plane, but the damage evidence doesn't support all of those reports, and considering witness reports are notoriously unreliable, then those that don't fit the damage evidence ought to be considered with that in mind.

If as the damage evidence indicates, cruise missiles were used, then that means the authorities, that provided the radar data, the witness accounts, and the videos of the fake planes, are to blame.

Blah, blah, frickin', blah! You're going by early news reports only. And before anyone was on the ground, so all the networks could do was speculate.

The damage evidence does support what everyone saw. Get over it.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by yankee451

In your creative diagram you ignored the fact that the NIST, FEMA, MIT, et al, and the videos, photos, and the Purdue cartoon, all contradict your explanation.

Again, there is no contradiction that I can see of that you have been able to point out.

You seem to think that if you say something it is automatically true.

[curious cat]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

What is an "equalresistive force" (other than a bogus pseudo-physics thing you just made up)?
............................................

I admit, when I saw it, my reaction was "nobody can be THAT stupid" and I tried to look it up on Google. Nope, it hasn't reach that well of wisdom yet .

[Itchy Boy]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Err no, - attempting to reverse the burden of proof is a staple of Conspiracy theorists when they have been cornered. That is not how burden of proof works.

That four aeroplanes were hijacked by terrorists and three of them were flown into buildings is an established fact. This fact is supported by, among other things

1. First hand observations by thousands of witnesses who saw the planes fly into the buildings
2. Four planes took off from airports on 9/11 but never arrived at their destinations
3. Some of the passengers on those aircraft were able to make phone calls to news agencies and loved ones
4. All of the passengers on those planes have disappeared, and the DNA of many of them has been identified at the crash sites
5. All of the aircraft wreckage at all four crash sites were only from the missing airliners.

All of the above amounts to what is known as"consilience". You claim that these airliners did not exist and that it was missiles that impacted the Pentagon, the Towers and the crash site at Stoney Creek. The burden of proof is on you to account for all of the above. This amounts to more that just saying "it was all faked". You have to show HOW it was faked, WHO did the faking.

If you think the aircraft wreckage was planted, how was it planted without a single witness seeing anything, and where did the wreckage originally come from?

If you think the passengers' DNA evidence was faked, who faked it and how did they do that without the regular DNA technicians knowing about it?

Where are the missing passengers?

Where are the missing planes?

How can i verify beyond doubtany of those 5 points?

[Itchy Boy]

If America was under attack, why was Rumsfeld helping to clean up the Pentagon lawn when he was the top man responsible for protecting the nation? Why was the President,who's location was publicly known allowed to remain at the school, when nobody knew whether the attacks were over? If the attacks were real, those things wouldn't have happened.

ETA: Rummy would have been doing his job and George would have been whisked away immediately.

[MattNelson]

Could missiles (Yankee's video) knock the building sideways as seen so clearly in the Myers video? I'm going to say no.

See Achimspok's "12th Comm' On 9/11 TV Fakery" to see motion detection by subtraction and 4x play speed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcPICd0o_kg

NIST version next. Skip to end for fast play speed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oprbCOup4O4

Did they fake the plane and the building sway?

[Itchy Boy]

Originally Posted by curious cat

I admit, when I saw it, my reaction was "nobody can be THAT stupid" and I tried to look it up on Google. Nope, it hasn't reach that well of wisdom yet .

Newton’s third law states that when two bodies interact, they apply forces to one another that are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.

what? You couldn't figure out I meant "equal resistive", referring to Newton's 3rd law?

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by yankee451

How do you figure? The columns were 14 inches wide. The warheads, the AGM-86 D has a 14 inch warhead, and the AGM-158 has a 12 inch warhead. Using the known measurements of the columns, the warheads of either of these missiles could do the deed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-86_ALCM

http://www.airforce-technology.com/p...ndoff-missile/

Interesting.
Can you explain how a 14 inch missile warhead can pass through a 14 inch space without getting stuck fast?

[curious cat]

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy

Newton’s third law states that when two bodies interact, they apply forces to one another that are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.

what? You couldn't figure out I meant "equal resistive", referring to Newton's 3rd law?

I am actually having problems figuring out most of the colossal nonseses you are feeding us with. Some consolation in the fact I am not alone...

[Grizzly Bear]

He's treating the concept as a simple body equation that you run through in college physics. The applications for that may be useful in very, very simple physics analysis, but not remotely suited a complete analysis of a complex real world application. Same way we've had folks like Tzamboti try to treat the WTC buildings as a whole like they were monolithic steel masses to justify his multipliers for how much strain they could withstand. With a flimsy foundation, I see no need to allow the discussion to get bogged down into microscopic details about what an individual column could do.

Not withstanding, the OP's case for faked video footage is sufficiently hampered by supporting evidence from witness testimony, lack of evidence that the tapes have been tampered, and extensive photographic documentation, especially of the second attack that the remainder of the side-lined arguments don't square with the original claim.

[The Common Potato]

Originally Posted by yankee451

So if I get this right, you're saying a wing spar, which is designed for vertical loads, cut through the steel and all but one piece of cladding.

Have you never seen jet engines hanging from wings? The thrust they produce is somewhat non-vertical.

[The Common Potato]

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy

How can i verify beyond doubt any of those 5 points?

How can you be certain of anything? I have only ever seen what I assume to be Canada on television or seen a representation of it on a map. Some school mates who went on a rugby tour to Vancouver in the late 1970s could be lying. I suppose the difference between scepticism and outright denial is one of trust. To my mind, being controversial just fr the sake of it is a bit pointless.

I place my trust in Neil (RIP), Alex and Geddy!

[Nay_Sayer]

Originally Posted by curious cat

I am actually having problems figuring out most of the colossal nonseses you are feeding us with. Some consolation in the fact I am not alone...

To put it nicely. Yankee and Itchy couldn't grasp breathing if it wasn't an involuntary reaction.

[yankee451]

Originally Posted by Elagabalus

A witness and survivor. Did you interview him?

Why would I? As the damage evidence (otherwise known as reality) shows, something else happened.

[yankee451]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

Interesting.
Can you explain how a 14 inch missile warhead can pass through a 14 inch space without getting stuck fast?

Quote:

"The warhead performed as predicted and met all expectations," said Elmer Lueker, the JASSM payload integrated product team leader in Phantom Works. "After experiencing shock loads as high as 12,000 Gs, there was no deformation of the casing and the fuze timing delay performed to the millisecond." The warhead struck the thick, reinforced concrete target, penetrated through it and traveled another half mile down range. The clean exit hole it left indicates that it had maintained the desired straight trajectory while traversing the thick target.

https://boeing.mediaroom.com/1998-02...M-Warhead-Test

[yankee451]

Originally Posted by Robin

Again, there is no contradiction that I can see of that you have been able to point out.

You seem to think that if you say something it is automatically true.

You can rationalize it all you like. Don't let me stop you.

[yankee451]

Originally Posted by Elagabalus

Blah, blah, frickin', blah! You're going by early news reports only. And before anyone was on the ground, so all the networks could do was speculate.

The damage evidence does support what everyone saw. Get over it.

Maybe you haven't read the OP.

[pgimeno]

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy

How can i verify beyond doubtany of those 5 points?

The legal standard of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt", and that is met.

Here are a few directions for your verification:

1. First hand observations by thousands of witnesses who saw the planes fly into the buildings

If you doubt them, do the interviews yourself.

2. Four planes took off from airports on 9/11 but never arrived at their destinations

Check the registration of the planes used for these flights, and their status.

3. Some of the passengers on those aircraft were able to make phone calls to news agencies and loved ones

I believe they were used in the Moussaoui trial. You could check the evidence presented there. It was good for a Court.

4. All of the passengers on those planes have disappeared, and the DNA of many of them has been identified at the crash sites

If you want to verify it, interview the families yourself. We have the passenger manifests of the flights (which included the hijackers, by the way). There are numerous testimonies of families of people who died on the planes.

5. All of the aircraft wreckage at all four crash sites were only from the missing airliners.

It matches the types that they were expected to have. I know of one particular piece at the Pentagon crash site that includes a serial number that could be verified:



I don't know if this was verified. If you're interested, you may dig it up.

[yankee451]

Originally Posted by pgimeno

The legal standard of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt", and that is met.

Here are a few directions for your verification:

1. First hand observations by thousands of witnesses who saw the planes fly into the buildings

If you doubt them, do the interviews yourself.

2. Four planes took off from airports on 9/11 but never arrived at their destinations

Check the registration of the planes used for these flights, and their status.

3. Some of the passengers on those aircraft were able to make phone calls to news agencies and loved ones

I believe they were used in the Moussaoui trial. You could check the evidence presented there. It was good for a Court.

4. All of the passengers on those planes have disappeared, and the DNA of many of them has been identified at the crash sites

If you want to verify it, interview the families yourself. We have the passenger manifests of the flights (which included the hijackers, by the way). There are numerous testimonies of families of people who died on the planes.

5. All of the aircraft wreckage at all four crash sites were only from the missing airliners.

It matches the types that they were expected to have. I know of one particular piece at the Pentagon crash site that includes a serial number that could be verified:

http://11-s.eu.org/11-s/pgimeno-AA-serial.jpg

I don't know if this was verified. If you're interested, you may dig it up.

1 - Nope, this is your assumption, all because you saw it on television. You have not confirmed your assumption. Your assumption doesn't change the damage evidence which proves something else happened, regardless of how many people you assume saw it.

2 - So what? According to the damage evidence at all sites, no planes crashed there.

3 - Appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy often used in the absence of factual evidence.

4 - Prove any of them existed to begin with. The most likely suspects are the same ones who provided the "DNA" evidence. It is up to you to prove any of it is true, and then you can explain how it overrides the physical evidence which proves that even if they did exist, they didn't crash there.

5 - So what? The most likely suspects planted evidence in support of their conclusion. None of the "wreckage" changes the evidence which proves a jet wasn't responsible.

[pgimeno]

Originally Posted by yankee451

1 - Nope, this is your assumption, all because you saw it on television. You have not confirmed your assumption. Your assumption doesn't change the damage evidence which proves something else happened, regardless of how many people you assume saw it.

All the evidence converges there. There are some small anomalies but they don't affect the big picture. The anomalies you point out are worthless without a whole theory.

But your view requires that every new piece of evidence brought into the discussion must be faked. That's the inflationary model of conspiracy theories.

"A Good Theory can be distinguished from a Conspiracy Theory as follows: When repeatedly exposed to scrutiny, the Conspiracy Theory requires more and more people involved, and more and more extraordinary events in order to prevent self-contradiction. A Good Theory, in contrast, remains approximately static in complexity as it is refined."

What you're doing is usually called anomaly hunting, and it's not a valid method for approaching the investigation of an event, because you're going to find anomalies in everything.

For any given fact, it's possible to deny everything about it by implying more and more people. Here's just another pearl, some more eyewitnesses to the second plane:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

(Minute 48:15 approx)

Note how some say it was a bomb, because they didn't see the plane as it was not visible from that side, but they saw the explosion. Then some others correct them because they did see the plane.

But of course, you're going to say these were actors, because there must be just so many people willing to pose as actors just to support the assassination of thousands of people, right?

Again in accordance with the inflationary model of conspiracy theories.

Originally Posted by yankee451

2 - So what? According to the damage evidence at all sites, no planes crashed there.

3 - Appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy often used in the absence of factual evidence.

The calls themselves are evidence, not an appeal to emotion. The phone companies provided the records for them. I was addressing ItchyBoy's question of how to verify these points beyond doubt.

Originally Posted by yankee451

4 - Prove any of them existed to begin with.

Their names are in the passenger manifests of the flights that crashed into the towers, Pentagon, and Shanksville. There, proved.

There's also this TV show: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b014gpjx where five CTers directly talked to the mother of one of the people who died in one of the flights. Want to check with them?

Edit: This one: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2jlcfz

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by yankee451

1 - Nope, this is your assumption, all because you saw it on television. You have not confirmed your assumption. Your assumption doesn't change the damage evidence which proves something else happened, regardless of how many people you assume saw it.

2 - So what? According to the damage evidence at all sites, no planes crashed there.

3 - Appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy often used in the absence of factual evidence.

4 - Prove any of them existed to begin with. The most likely suspects are the same ones who provided the "DNA" evidence. It is up to you to prove any of it is true, and then you can explain how it overrides the physical evidence which proves that even if they did exist, they didn't crash there.

5 - So what? The most likely suspects planted evidence in support of their conclusion. None of the "wreckage" changes the evidence which proves a jet wasn't responsible.

Mmm, aren't you a little late, pal? All this was done to death about fifteen years ago. Do you really think someone will be lured into re-iterating all the evidence for your benefit? I doubt it.

Hans

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy

The videos are clear enough to see there's no damage upon impact.

The low resolution compressed video still you posted is isn't even good enough to see the building's wall is made up of columns.

Complaining that you can't see what you couldn't hope to see is not evidence.

[Elagabalus]

Originally Posted by yankee451

Why would I? As the damage evidence (otherwise known as reality) shows, something else happened.

You must be great at parties.

[Elagabalus]

Originally Posted by yankee451

1 - Nope, this is your assumption, all because you saw it on television. You have not confirmed your assumption. Your assumption doesn't change the damage evidence which proves something else happened, regardless of how many people you assume saw it.

2 - So what? According to the damage evidence at all sites, no planes crashed there.

3 - Appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy often used in the absence of factual evidence.

4 - Prove any of them existed to begin with. The most likely suspects are the same ones who provided the "DNA" evidence. It is up to you to prove any of it is true, and then you can explain how it overrides the physical evidence which proves that even if they did exist, they didn't crash there.

5 - So what? The most likely suspects planted evidence in support of their conclusion. None of the "wreckage" changes the evidence which proves a jet wasn't responsible.

Something I feel to be true will always be true (to me) if I never bother to look it up.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1528

[Elagabalus]

Originally Posted by pgimeno

All the evidence converges there. There are some small anomalies but they don't affect the big picture. The anomalies you point out are worthless without a whole theory.

But your view requires that every new piece of evidence brought into the discussion must be faked. That's the inflationary model of conspiracy theories.

"A Good Theory can be distinguished from a Conspiracy Theory as follows: When repeatedly exposed to scrutiny, the Conspiracy Theory requires more and more people involved, and more and more extraordinary events in order to prevent self-contradiction. A Good Theory, in contrast, remains approximately static in complexity as it is refined."

What you're doing is usually called anomaly hunting, and it's not a valid method for approaching the investigation of an event, because you're going to find anomalies in everything.

For any given fact, it's possible to deny everything about it by implying more and more people. Here's just another pearl, some more eyewitnesses to the second plane:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

(Minute 48:15 approx)

Note how some say it was a bomb, because they didn't see the plane as it was not visible from that side, but they saw the explosion. Then some others correct them because they did see the plane.

But of course, you're going to say these were actors, because there must be just so many people willing to pose as actors just to support the assassination of thousands of people, right?

Again in accordance with the inflationary model of conspiracy theories.



The calls themselves are evidence, not an appeal to emotion. The phone companies provided the records for them. I was addressing ItchyBoy's question of how to verify these points beyond doubt.



Their names are in the passenger manifests of the flights that crashed into the towers, Pentagon, and Shanksville. There, proved.

There's also this TV show: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b014gpjx where five CTers directly talked to the mother of one of the people who died in one of the flights. Want to check with them?

Edit: This one: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2jlcfz

And, ironically, he's using the same videos as the basis for his conclusions. The same videos he tells everyone are fake. Oi vay.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by MattNelson

Could missiles (Yankee's video) knock the building sideways as seen so clearly in the Myers video? I'm going to say no.

See Achimspok's "12th Comm' On 9/11 TV Fakery" to see motion detection by subtraction and 4x play speed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcPICd0o_kg

NIST version next. Skip to end for fast play speed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oprbCOup4O4

Did they fake the plane and the building sway?

That's curious.

If the plane was faked on that video, using some kind of masking/overlay technique (the details of which scarcely matter except to note that the effect is imperceptible even to experts) and thousands of pounds of jet fuel and debris are simultaneously launched out of the tower at hundreds of miles an hour, why does the building sway toward the material being launched out of it and not away from it?

It's almost as if a plane crashed into the tower after all.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy

How can i verify beyond doubtany of those 5 points?

In the pre-internet era, the answer would be take a basic journalism course and then start making calls.

Nowadays the answer starts with a question: are you going to believe anything you find online? Well then, take the basic journalism course and start making calls.

[Itchy Boy]

Originally Posted by Nay_Sayer

To put it nicely. Yankee and Itchy couldn't grasp breathing if it wasn't an involuntary reaction.

You didn't have an argument so you have to childishly resort to a silly dig.
We're mightily impressed.

[Itchy Boy]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

In the pre-internet era, the answer would be take a basic journalism course and then start making calls.

Nowadays the answer starts with a question: are you going to believe anything you find online? Well then, take the basic journalism course and start making calls.

It's hard to know what to believe these days regardless if you get your info online, at the library or from an 'expert'.s Not everyone has the wherewithal to take a 'journalism course'. There was a guy who made a bunch of calls. They didn't really prove anything beyond doubt. He called the people who made the videos, engineers from the plane manufactures and so on.

All one can really do is collect as much information as practically possible and then take your best guess.

As for journalists, If I cite Jon Rappaport or John Pilger's work, nobody here is going buy it. Then wehave 'journalist liars like Mike Walter and the incompetent ones who spread the Nayirah Kuwaiti incubator story. These days, anyone looking for the truth is basically has to use their own sensibilities to separate the wheat from the chaff.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy

bye-bye

All one can really do is collect as much information as practically possible and then take your best guess.

birdie

What happens when someone's best guess is based on bad science fiction rather than fact?

That's a rhetorical question because we have ample evidence right here in this thread.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy

Not everyone has the wherewithal to take a 'journalism course'.

So get a book from the library, while there are still libraries.

If you don't believe the evidence that's available you're going to have to collect your own, and that's likely to be a lot of work.

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by yankee451

From The Skeptics Guide

And yet somehow that Straw Man ends up getting embedded in a tree during a tornado.

You loose.

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy

If America was under attack, why was Rumsfeld helping to clean up the Pentagon lawn when he was the top man responsible for protecting the nation? Why was the President,who's location was publicly known allowed to remain at the school, when nobody knew whether the attacks were over? If the attacks were real, those things wouldn't have happened.

ETA: Rummy would have been doing his job and George would have been whisked away immediately.

So if a scientist, medical doctor, or government official makes a statement your default is to automatically disbelieve that person. But when some CT Baboon makes a claim you eat up.

Rumsfeld and his guys came out to see what happened and jumped into help move the injured, not clean up the lawn. He did that because at that instant it's what a good person does - helps out. His security team quickly got him out of there.

In the case of Bush, at the time of the attacks he was in a secure location, and the Secret Service and local law enforcement was quickly assessing the exit route back to the airport along with the airport perimeter to make sure some kind of an ambush hadn't been set up. As soon as they were confident they could get him back to the airport they got him moving.

Only cowardly CTists go running off at the first sign of trouble without thinking.

[Itchy Boy]

Originally Posted by pgimeno

All the evidence converges there. There are some small anomalies but they don't affect the big picture. The anomalies you point out are worthless without a whole theory.

But your view requires that every new piece of evidence brought into the discussion must be faked. That's the inflationary model of conspiracy theories.

"A Good Theory can be distinguished from a Conspiracy Theory as follows: When repeatedly exposed to scrutiny, the Conspiracy Theory requires more and more people involved, and more and more extraordinary events in order to prevent self-contradiction. A Good Theory, in contrast, remains approximately static in complexity as it is refined."

What you're doing is usually called anomaly hunting, and it's not a valid method for approaching the investigation of an event, because you're going to find anomalies in everything.

For any given fact, it's possible to deny everything about it by implying more and more people. Here's just another pearl, some more eyewitnesses to the second plane:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

(Minute 48:15 approx)

Note how some say it was a bomb, because they didn't see the plane as it was not visible from that side, but they saw the explosion. Then some others correct them because they did see the plane.

But of course, you're going to say these were actors, because there must be just so many people willing to pose as actors just to support the assassination of thousands of people, right?

Again in accordance with the inflationary model of conspiracy theories.



The calls themselves are evidence, not an appeal to emotion. The phone companies provided the records for them. I was addressing ItchyBoy's question of how to verify these points beyond doubt.



Their names are in the passenger manifests of the flights that crashed into the towers, Pentagon, and Shanksville. There, proved.

There's also this TV show: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b014gpjx where five CTers directly talked to the mother of one of the people who died in one of the flights. Want to check with them?

Edit: This one: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2jlcfz

You cite thousands of witnesses. WHere are they? Thousands were not interviewed an those that were told conflicting stories. There was one vid where the reporter on the ground said, "I didn't see a plane" then the on-air person 'corrected't them, "Ya there's a plane I saw it on the monitor".

They didn't need thousaands of crisis actors, only a few like Harley Guy and probably the CTers you mentioned. The CT community is awash in moles an people posing as truthers. Which in itself is another tell that something is up.

ERA: Having been at this stuff for 15 years, I'm convinced there's no way for the average person to verify beyond doubt the official narrative. Not in 9/11, The Apollo 'landings', or any other so-called CT. What we CAN do is spot improbabiliies, contradictions and implausibilies which point to the offical narrative being a fiction. Like Rumsfeld on the Pentagon lawn. Hey, Donnie, 2 planes just crashed into the wTC,another one hit us right here and another hijacked plane went down in Pennsylvania. Thanks for the info, Joe. I better get right down to the lawn and help the cleanup.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy

Bzzzzz

They didn't need thousaands of crisis actors, only a few like Harley Guy and probably the CTers you mentioned. The CT community is awash in moles an people posing as truthers. Which in itself is another tell that something is up.

Ray Davies wrote a song about that...in 1980

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE