9/11: How they Faked the Videos

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by yankee451

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...ge-300x223.jpg

The predictable and inevitable clutch at the Kamikaze straw.

Extraneous snipped

Translation from conspiraspeak:

How dare you cite facts when I'm on a perfectly good fantasy riff!

[SpitfireIX]

Originally Posted by yankee451

Exactly.


https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-...e-shaped-hole/

So what you're saying is all the governments of the world are in on it. Is it any wonder that no one whose opinion matters takes you seriously?

[MattNelson]

Ace Baker says:

Quote:

I think they shot an engine part our [sic] of a cannon on the 81st floor, then melted it down with thermite. This would explain the engine part, the trajectory, and the molten metal seen flowing out of that area in the Camera Planet video.

Are you going with that, too, Steve? Please read my PDF before answering with crap about planting the wrong engine.

[yankee451]

Originally Posted by MattNelson

Ace Baker says:



Are you going with that, too, Steve? Please read my PDF before answering with crap about planting the wrong engine.

LOL. No, I'm not hip to that. Sparks are sparks, not molten metal.

Quote:

It was Bollyn who gave us molten steel at the WTC, something that was parroted by alleged members of the FDNY. These statements taken together are evidence of collusion, not evidence of super-hot fires; on the one hand we have a so-called journalist breathlessly reporting about molten steel, and on the other we see what looks like firefighters corroborating that tale, which puts the firefighters and Bollyn on the same side, allegedly fighting the “Man” that is supposedly suppressing this information. But apparently they are working together with the Man to spread confusion; it takes two minutes to verify there are no photographs or videos of any molten metal whatsoever, cooled or hot, from 9/11.

The videos you’ve seen of the sparks pouring out of the towers were just that, sparks, not waterfalls of molten steel:

https://youtu.be/BSw2ChOaDQk

Acetylene torches can do the same thing, so why aren’t truthers investigating why there would be a clearly visible shower of sparks from an acetylene torch pouring out of an office building that would soon collapse into a cloud of dust? My guess is because Christopher Bollyn, Stephen Jones, the NYPD and the FDNY led them to molten metal and such is the power of suggestion, illustrating the importance of leading the opposition.

https://911crashtest.org/taboo-truth...g-shanksville/

[yankee451]

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

So what you're saying is all the governments of the world are in on it. Is it any wonder that no one whose opinion matters takes you seriously?

Quote:

The only rational conclusion that fits the evidence is that all the worlds’ media were and are colluding in this colossal lie. I am well aware of how mind-blowing this conclusion is, but it is what it is, which is (unfortunately) often too much information for some people to process; so much so that it frequently shuts-down anyone weaned on the fantasy of the fourth estate.

How 9/11 Missiles Equate to Global Slavery

[BStrong]

Why do people believe in conspiracy theories?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...iracy-theories

David Ludden Ph.D.

Why Do People Believe in Conspiracy Theories?
The need to find order in a confusing world
Posted Jan 06, 2018


It seems that every family has an Uncle Joe—the guy who goes on and on about conspiracy theories at the holiday dinner table. The 9/11 attack was orchestrated by the government. The moon landing was filmed in Hollywood. Oswald did not act alone in the Kennedy assassination. And don’t get me started on global warming. Record low temperatures this Christmas, and you expect me to believe the world is actually getting warmer? Give me a break.

Maybe we should give Uncle Joe a break, or at least try to understand where he’s coming from. Why do some people believe in conspiracy theories anyway? This is exactly the question posed by British psychologist Karen Douglas and her colleagues in a recent article in the journal Current Directions in Psychological Science.

The researchers found that reasons for believing in conspiracy theories can be grouped into three categories:

The desire for understanding and certainty
The desire for control and security
The desire to maintain a positive self-image

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by yankee451

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.

And that's not the only thing wrong with it. I counted the number of rivets in the fuselage in that 'scientific' cartoon. Guess what? There weren't any! And where are the shadows?

Do they think we are idiots? The whole thing is a fake from start to finish - not even close to reality. So how did they do it? Examine all the clues and you will come to the same conclusion as me. There is only one possible explanation - they must have made that cartoon on the Moon!

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by yankee451

How 9/11 Missiles Equate to Global Slavery

Ye gods. That site is the product of sick mind.

[yankee451]

Originally Posted by BStrong

Why do people believe in conspiracy theories?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...iracy-theories

David Ludden Ph.D.

Why Do People Believe in Conspiracy Theories?
The need to find order in a confusing world
Posted Jan 06, 2018


It seems that every family has an Uncle Joe—the guy who goes on and on about conspiracy theories at the holiday dinner table. The 9/11 attack was orchestrated by the government. The moon landing was filmed in Hollywood. Oswald did not act alone in the Kennedy assassination. And don’t get me started on global warming. Record low temperatures this Christmas, and you expect me to believe the world is actually getting warmer? Give me a break.

Maybe we should give Uncle Joe a break, or at least try to understand where he’s coming from. Why do some people believe in conspiracy theories anyway? This is exactly the question posed by British psychologist Karen Douglas and her colleagues in a recent article in the journal Current Directions in Psychological Science.

The researchers found that reasons for believing in conspiracy theories can be grouped into three categories:

The desire for understanding and certainty
The desire for control and security
The desire to maintain a positive self-image

Unlike establishment credentialed self-important psychologists?

Quote:

Debunking Conspiracy Theorists

Astute Observers of History are aware that for every notable event there will usually be at least one, often several, wild conspiracy theories which spring up around it. "The CIA killed Hendrix," "The Pope had John Lennon murdered," "Hitler was a werwolf," "Space aliens replaced Nixon with a clone," etc, etc. The bigger the event, the more ridiculous and more numerous are the fanciful rantings which circulate in relation to it.

So its hardly surprising that the events of Sept 11 2001 have spawned their fair share of these ludicrous fairy tales. And as always, there is—sadly—a small but gullible percentage of the population eager to lap up these tall tales, regardless of facts or rational analysis.
One of the wilder stories circulating about Sept 11, and one that has attracted something of a cult following amongst conspiracy buffs is that it was carried out by 19 fanatical Arab hijackers, masterminded by an evil genius named Osama bin Laden, with no apparent motivation other than that they “hate our freedoms.”

Never a group of people to be bothered by facts, the perpetrators of this cartoon fantasy have constructed an elaborately woven web of delusions and unsubstantiated hearsay in order to promote this garbage across the internet and the media to the extent that a number of otherwise rational people have actually fallen under its spell.
Normally I don’t even bother debunking this kind of junk, but the effect that this paranoid myth is beginning to have requires a little rational analysis, in order to consign it to the same rubbish bin as all such silly conspiracy theories.

These crackpots even contend that the extremist Bush regime was caught unawares by the attacks, had no hand in organizing them, and actually would have stopped them if it had been able. Blindly ignoring the stand down of the US air-force, the insider trading on airline stocks— linked to the CIA, the complicit behavior of Bush on the morning of the attacks, the controlled demolition of the WTC, the firing of a missile into the Pentagon and a host of other documented proofs that the Bush regime was behind the attacks, the conspiracy theorists stick doggedly to a silly story about 19 Arab hijackers somehow managing to commandeer 4 planes simultaneously and fly them around US airspace for nearly 2 hours ,crashing them into important buildings, without the US intelligence services having any idea that it was coming, and without the Air Force knowing what to do.
https://911crashtest.org/debunking-c...acy-theorists/

[yankee451]

Originally Posted by GlennB

Ye gods. That site is the product of sick mind.

Gasp! Run away!

[MattNelson]

Then HOW did the engine core hit a building, knock down street signs, and come to rest smoking hot at the corner of Church and Murray?

[yankee451]

Originally Posted by MattNelson

Then HOW did the engine core hit a building, knock down street signs, and come to rest smoking hot at the corner of Church and Murray?

Well it didn't cut through a steel building, that's for sure. So you tell me how it got there.

[yankee451]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Do they think we are idiots?

Yes, without a doubt.

Quote:

For whatever their reasons our leaders have been treating us like imbeciles, and until we speak out against this insanity we deserve to be treated as such.

From "Tired of War Without End."

[MattNelson]

Originally Posted by yankee451

Well it didn't cut through a steel building, that's for sure. So you tell me how it got there.

I DID ALREADY, IN THE PDF!

THINK, STEVE! OR MAKE LIKE A TREE AND GET OUTTA HERE.

[yankee451]

Originally Posted by MattNelson

I DID ALREADY, IN THE PDF!

THINK, STEVE! OR MAKE LIKE A TREE AND GET OUTTA HERE.

My apologies, but I must have missed the link.

[yankee451]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

I don't understand why nobody here takes this seriously.

Actually I do. As one of the photographers paid to pose as an amateur for 9/11, I take it very seriously. That's why I will never talk about it to anyone who isn't in on the conspiracy.

What's that you say, I just did? But of course you know better. I know that you are in on it to too. That's why you keep presenting 'evidence' so full of holes that a child could see through it - to discredit the 9/11 truth movement and make sure nobody bothers to look at the real evidence - which irrefutably proves it was an inside job.

But this a vast conspiracy - much vaster than a mere 10 to 50 thousand crisis actors. Current estimates put the number of people 'in on it' at ~35 million worldwide, with more joining the conspiracy every day. And not just since 9/11, but before it too. The planning took years, centuries even. You know that bit in the Bible where Jesus says "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."? He was in on it.

I get it. You think that because you're clever enough to use a remote control, you deserve the truth to be handed to you on a silver screen. The government is there for your benefit and protection. The CIA likes you. The Bluebird of Happiness lands on your shoulder.

[SpitfireIX]

Originally Posted by yankee451

How 9/11 Missiles Equate to Global Slavery

What GlennB said.

The only rational conclusion that fits the evidence is that all the worlds’ media were and are colluding in this colossal lie. I am well aware of how mind-blowing this conclusion is, but it is what it is, which is (unfortunately) often too much information for some people to process; so much so that it frequently shuts-down anyone weaned on the fantasy of the fourth estate.

No. "The only rational conclusion" is that the author's (and your, and most other conspiracists') interpretation of the evidence is hopelessly flawed and biased. You insinuate that no one listens to you because no one can handle the truth. You ignore the far more likely and reasonable possibility that no one listens to you because you are quite clearly completely wrong.

[yankee451]

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

What GlennB said.

The only rational conclusion that fits the evidence is that all the worlds’ media were and are colluding in this colossal lie. I am well aware of how mind-blowing this conclusion is, but it is what it is, which is (unfortunately) often too much information for some people to process; so much so that it frequently shuts-down anyone weaned on the fantasy of the fourth estate.

No. "The only rational conclusion" is that the author's (and your, and most other conspiracists') interpretation of the evidence is hopelessly flawed and biased. You insinuate that no one listens to you because no one can handle the truth. You ignore the far more likely and reasonable possibility that no one listens to you because you are quite clearly completely wrong.

Well now's your chance to explain how the evidence doesn't fit my conclusion.

[Blue Mountain]

Hey Yankee451, I notice you've completely ignored (twice!) my question about the missing aircraft and the people aboard them. There is the fact that four aircraft and 236 people suddenly went missing on September 11, 2001. There's a lot of evidence to show two of these aircraft were crashed into the World Trade Center in New York. If these aircraft were not involved with the attack, what is your explanation for what happened to them and the people who were aboard?

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by yankee451

Well now's your chance to explain how the evidence doesn't fit my conclusion.

No that's reversed burden Proof it's your theory, and you can not falsify the plane imp!act theory.

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by BStrong

Why do people believe in conspiracy theories?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...iracy-theories

David Ludden Ph.D.

Why Do People Believe in Conspiracy Theories?
The need to find order in a confusing world
Posted Jan 06, 2018


It seems that every family has an Uncle Joe—the guy who goes on and on about conspiracy theories at the holiday dinner table. The 9/11 attack was orchestrated by the government. The moon landing was filmed in Hollywood. Oswald did not act alone in the Kennedy assassination. And don’t get me started on global warming. Record low temperatures this Christmas, and you expect me to believe the world is actually getting warmer? Give me a break.

Maybe we should give Uncle Joe a break, or at least try to understand where he’s coming from. Why do some people believe in conspiracy theories anyway? This is exactly the question posed by British psychologist Karen Douglas and her colleagues in a recent article in the journal Current Directions in Psychological Science.

The researchers found that reasons for believing in conspiracy theories can be grouped into three categories:

The desire for understanding and certainty
The desire for control and security
The desire to maintain a positive self-image

Steve's going through a midlife crisis like Gage did. Not sure why he's fixated on 9-11 but he's decided to make this his windmill. He posts here because the Truther boards probably give him the boot since he's too far gone even for them. When asked for supporting evidence all of his links are to his webpage or Youtube channel which suggests that he feels he is the ultimate intellectual authority on the matter even while demonstrating in text and video that he has no clue about the things he talks about.

He stated that he wants to leave a legacy for his grandkids and this suggests that he has failed at many things in his life and blames others for these failures, hence the reflexive distrust and disdain for government. His anger toward professionals is the underlying theme in all of his threads.

[yankee451]

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw

No that's reversed burden Proof it's your theory, and you can not falsify the plane imp!act theory.

The burden of proof is on original claimants, those that insist a jet caused the damage. The lightly damaged cladding and the sharply bent steel at the left of both impact holes are proof that the original claim is false. I have offered an alternative explanation that does fit the evidence. If you think the evidence doesn't support my conclusion, and instead supports the conclusion that it was caused by the head on crash of a 767, please explain.

[yankee451]

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain

Hey Yankee451, I notice you've completely ignored (twice!) my question about the missing aircraft and the people aboard them. There is the fact that four aircraft and 236 people suddenly went missing on September 11, 2001. There's a lot of evidence to show two of these aircraft were crashed into the World Trade Center in New York. If these aircraft were not involved with the attack, what is your explanation for what happened to them and the people who were aboard?

The story of the planes comes from the most likely suspects.

Quote:

If you’re new to 9/11 research you’re probably thinking, “What about the Planes? What about the witnesses? What about the passengers and the pilots? What about the hijackers?” The questions pile up quickly but an astute observer would deduce that if the videos of the plane impacts aren’t legitimate, then that makes moot the question of passengers, pilots, hijackers and witnesses. It also means the media are involved. If missiles were used then that means the military is involved and if that’s true then the government must have been involved too. When taken together the ramifications of the evidence of missile impacts are too overwhelming and outrageous for many people to even consider as a possibility, so they reject it sight unseen, which is of course the desired response. It is the “big lie” after all, which can summarized thus; the bigger the lie being told the more likely it is that it will be believed.

But the evidence in the impact holes doesn’t lie.

https://911crashtest.org/how-9-11-mi...lobal-slavery/

[yankee451]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

Steve's going through a midlife crisis like Gage did. Not sure why he's fixated on 9-11 but he's decided to make this his windmill. He posts here because the Truther boards probably give him the boot since he's too far gone even for them. When asked for supporting evidence all of his links are to his webpage or Youtube channel which suggests that he feels he is the ultimate intellectual authority on the matter even while demonstrating in text and video that he has no clue about the things he talks about.

He stated that he wants to leave a legacy for his grandkids and this suggests that he has failed at many things in his life and blames others for these failures, hence the reflexive distrust and disdain for government. His anger toward professionals is the underlying theme in all of his threads.

It is important to set the historical record straight so that future generations don't get fooled again.

From what I know of Richard Gage, he and I have very little in common.

[AJM8125]

Originally Posted by yankee451

Well now's your chance to explain how the evidence doesn't fit my conclusion.

You haven't provided any evidence. You've provided ridiculous theories.

[yankee451]

Originally Posted by AJM8125

You haven't provided any evidence. You've provided ridiculous theories.

I understand how they may seem ridiculous to you, but they do match the evidence that was provided. Specifically the lightly bent aluminum sheeting and the progressively worse damage and sharp bends to the steel columns, and on the right column from the left of both towers, an inward blasting hole through a box column that was nowhere near where the alleged jet's engine impacted. If you missed the links and photos, please scroll back on the thread.

[AJM8125]

Originally Posted by yankee451

I understand how they may seem ridiculous to you, but they do match the evidence that was provided. Specifically the lightly bent aluminum sheeting and the progressively worse damage and sharp bends to the steel columns, and on the right column from the left of both towers, an inward blasting hole through a box column that was nowhere near where the alleged jet's engine impacted. If you missed the links and photos, please scroll back on the thread.

You keep saying "evidence". I'm sure you believe it's the sharp lines you've drawn on your blurry screen grabs, but it really isn't. Theory isn't evidence, now matter how much you want it to be.

In order for you to advance any of your theories, you have to come to terms with the following, for starters -

1. United Flight 11 was hijacked by terrorist cowards and deliberately crashed into WTC1.
   
2. American Flight 175 was hijacked by terrorist cowards and deliberately crashed into WTC2.
   
3. Flight 77 was hijacked by terrorist cowards and deliberately crashed into The Pentagon.
   
4. Flight 93 was hijack and was forced to crash in Shanksville, PA before the terrorist cowards reached their intended target.

Not one no-planer has ever refuted these facts.

[yankee451]

Originally Posted by AJM8125

You keep saying "evidence". I'm sure you believe it's the sharp lines you've drawn on your blurry screen grabs, but it really isn't. Theory isn't evidence, now matter how much you want it to be.

In order for you to advance any of your theories, you have to come to terms with the following, for starters -

1. United Flight 11 was hijacked by terrorist cowards and deliberately crashed into WTC1.
   
2. American Flight 175 was hijacked by terrorist cowards and deliberately crashed into WTC2.
   
3. Flight 77 was hijacked by terrorist cowards and deliberately crashed into The Pentagon.
   
4. Flight 93 was hijack and was forced to crash in Shanksville, PA before the terrorist cowards reached their intended target.

Not one no-planer has ever refuted these facts.

They lied, as evidenced by every video and photograph in the public domain.

[AJM8125]

Originally Posted by yankee451

They lied, as evidenced by every video and photograph in the public domain.

That's your opinion, which isn't a refutation.

By the way Steve, if every video and photograph in the public domain is a lie, then your "evidence" is based upon that lie.

Think about it.

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by yankee451

Why, you don't think certain corrupt members of the police and fire departments might not want to make a few extra bucks for planting plane parts and setting a few derelict cars on fire?

How do suppose "they" recruited these "certain corrupt members of the police and fire departments" willing to risk prison for "a few extra bucks"?

Did they post notices on the station bulletin boards?

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by yankee451

They lied, as evidenced by every video and photograph in the public domain.

They who? Names so we can get to the bottom of your fantasy version of 9/11.

No lies from "they", only a failed fantasy you failed to provide more than nonsense as your evidence.

The burden of proof is on you.

[llwyd]

This thread is kind of nostalgic - I used to participate around 2010 in massive debates in a popular Finnish forum about "controlled explosions" and "free fall" and WTC7 and other nonsense. I guess some were finally convinced but for the diehards it's a religion and there is no evidence, no logic, no mathematics that will convince them.

It's a weird state of mind. One of my best friends had 9/11 as his gateway conspiracy and now he believes the weirdest, the most unplausible things, rages about Rothchilds and Windsors and Jews. Thinks that Hitler was a decent man who didn't want war. And he is basically intelligent, very artistic - and not much understanding of natural science and math. But I think the most important thing for him is to feel smug, like superior to all the sheep who believe. He really thinks he is critical of evidence, whereas he is the most uncritical and naive person I know.

So, actually not really that nostalgic. It's just sad proof of the vast reaches of gullibility and blindness and illogic that human nature is capable of.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by yankee451

I understand how they may seem ridiculous to you, but they do match the evidence that was provided. Specifically the lightly bent aluminum sheeting and the progressively worse damage and sharp bends to the steel columns, and on the right column from the left of both towers, an inward blasting hole through a box column that was nowhere near where the alleged jet's engine impacted. If you missed the links and photos, please scroll back on the thread.

I have a new theory that a giant walked up to the building and poked holes in it with his giant fingers, then squeezed, poked and twisted some more until he had made a pleasingly plane-shaped hole.

He then breathed fire into the hole because this kind of giant breathes fire.

I understand how this may seem ridiculous to you, but it does match the evidence that was provided. Specifically the lightly bent aluminum sheeting and the progressively worse damage and sharp bends to the steel columns, and on the right column from the left of both towers, an inward blasting hole through a box column that was nowhere near where the alleged jet's engine impacted.

I can probably draw you a picture if you think that would be cool. I can't decide if he should have a hat. Do giants wear hats?

[JSanderO]

Originally Posted by llwyd

This thread is kind of nostalgic - I used to participate around 2010 in massive debates in a popular Finnish forum about "controlled explosions" and "free fall" and WTC7 and other nonsense. I guess some were finally convinced but for the diehards it's a religion and there is no evidence, no logic, no mathematics that will convince them.

It's a weird state of mind. One of my best friends had 9/11 as his gateway conspiracy and now he believes the weirdest, the most unplausible things, rages about Rothchilds and Windsors and Jews. Thinks that Hitler was a decent man who didn't want war. And he is basically intelligent, very artistic - and not much understanding of natural science and math. But I think the most important thing for him is to feel smug, like superior to all the sheep who believe. He really thinks he is critical of evidence, whereas he is the most uncritical and naive person I know.

So, actually not really that nostalgic. It's just sad proof of the vast reaches of gullibility and blindness and illogic that human nature is capable of.

Several people, I among them, have noted that the most stunning take away from 9/11 is about "mass psychology". We've see this before in cults like Scientology which to this day count tens of thousands of members. All cults share some common attributes and among them is that we are told lies and the cult offers the truth. People seem to value truth above anything... even when it is a falsehood. They cling to these beliefs like a dog to a bone. We see this in religious followers who clearly suspend their critical thinking to accept all manner of "made up tales" to explain the divine and how that relates to humans.

There are many people who respect critical thinking and scientific rigor and yet still see that the explanations for a very complex event such as 9/11 may be "incomplete" in the details. That explanation attempts to reconstruct a detailed history which was not recorded second by second in minute detail.

Cult like thinkers are asking people to take a leap of faith into their fantasy of events. Some will follow because they believe, and rightly so, that we are constantly fed all manner of spin, marketing, and even deception to achieve some aim or hidden agenda. However lies have short legs and don't get very far like the WMDs and so on. Truther stuff is essentially made up out of whole cloth and disguised as rational science and critical thinking. Steve and Gage and all the other truthers share this. And they are incapable of stepping outside their belief systems to see how flawed they are. Like cult members you cannot change them with rational arguments.

[The Common Potato]

Originally Posted by yankee451

You say potato, I say spud.

Actually my school nickname was Chip Butty.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by yankee451

So a wing spar, that is meant for horizontal loads (not for head on impacts into steel box columns), DRAGGED the steel to the right?

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...front-spar.png

Why, if a wing was that strong, wouldn't it just wedge them apart?

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...T-approach.gif

One way to decide would be by examining the damage to the tower. Is there evidence of the impact of a massive wing spar on the right corners of the columns? Nope.
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...ide-dents1.jpg

First Question yes.
Second Question no, the front connection of the wing spar to the fuselages will fail as it makes contact first.
3 the dragging to the right is that evidence You just don't understand the link between Connections strength and physics of impact, the Connections will determine the path of energy flows in a building or an airplane wing.

[curious cat]

Originally Posted by JSanderO

Several people, I among them, have noted that the most stunning take away from 9/11 is about "mass psychology". We've see this before in cults like Scientology which to this day count tens of thousands of members. All cults share some common attributes and among them is that we are told lies and the cult offers the truth. People seem to value truth above anything... even when it is a falsehood. They cling to these beliefs like a dog to a bone. We see this in religious followers who clearly suspend their critical thinking to accept all manner of "made up tales" to explain the divine and how that relates to humans.

There are many people who respect critical thinking and scientific rigor and yet still see that the explanations for a very complex event such as 9/11 may be "incomplete" in the details. That explanation attempts to reconstruct a detailed history which was not recorded second by second in minute detail.

Cult like thinkers are asking people to take a leap of faith into their fantasy of events. Some will follow because they believe, and rightly so, that we are constantly fed all manner of spin, marketing, and even deception to achieve some aim or hidden agenda. However lies have short legs and don't get very far like the WMDs and so on. Truther stuff is essentially made up out of whole cloth and disguised as rational science and critical thinking. Steve and Gage and all the other truthers share this. And they are incapable of stepping outside their belief systems to see how flawed they are. Like cult members you cannot change them with rational arguments.

I've been just pointed at this article https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3703523/
in connection with discussion of another conspiracy theory. Anybody interest in the psychology of there freaks will find a lot of useful information there.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by yankee451

The burden of proof is on original claimants, those that insist a jet caused the damage. The lightly damaged cladding and the sharply bent steel at the left of both impact holes are proof that the original claim is false. I have offered an alternative explanation that does fit the evidence. If you think the evidence doesn't support my conclusion, and instead supports the conclusion that it was caused by the head on crash of a 767, please explain.

No it isn't, a Jet was observed to make the strike by withnesses so you have to disprove the Evidetuary if you can't your theory is Falsified because a better theory is already in Place with a logical chain of events.
That's your problem not mine I see nothing I would not expect in your so called evidence from a planes impact, on to steel columns which were pretty weak to substain such a high energy impact on the most deformable side..

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw

No it isn't, a Jet was observed to make the strike by withnesses so you have to disprove the Evidetuary if you can't your theory is Falsified because a better theory is already in Place with a logical chain of events.
That's your problem not mine I see nothing I would not expect in your so called evidence from a planes impact, on to steel columns which were pretty weak to substain such a high energy impact on the most deformable side..

Well you say that, but the video which would originally have shown a fire breathing giant was faked by someone pressing the "fake video" button on their , umm, complicated technical TV machine.

And of course any actual eyewitnesses were bamboozled by the fake video because ordinary people, unlike me, are so stupid that if they see something on TV they discard what they already know and substitute that instead. And I'm pretty sure there's a rumour of an early account of someone who said they thought they might have heard "Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum" before one of the impacts.

So you just have to explain why having a plane shaped hole made by a fire breathing giant doesn't explain the evidence of the plane shaped hole when it's an exact fit for that narrowly-isolated bit of the evidence.

And before anyone says fire-breathing giants weren't in service in 2001, remember that accounts of giants go back through pantomime history for generations. And don't forget Judy Woods research into massive space beanstalks. So, you know, that.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Well you say that, but the video which would originally have shown a fire breathing giant was faked by someone pressing the "fake video" button on their , umm, complicated technical TV machine.

And of course any actual eyewitnesses were bamboozled by the fake video because ordinary people, unlike me, are so stupid that if they see something on TV they discard what they already know and substitute that instead. And I'm pretty sure there's a rumour of an early account of someone who said they thought they might have heard "Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum" before one of the impacts.

So you just have to explain why having a plane shaped hole made by a fire breathing giant doesn't explain the evidence of the plane shaped hole when it's an exact fit for that narrowly-isolated bit of the evidence.

And before anyone says fire-breathing giants weren't in service in 2001, remember that accounts of giants go back through pantomime history for generations. And don't forget Judy Woods research into massive space beanstalks. So, you know, that.

You know that's silly, everyone knows it was the giant Spaghetti Monster, I mean doesn't that hole look like a Giant spaghetti monster hole?