• There is a problem with the forum sending notifications via emails. icerat has been informed. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

911 Flight 175 radar data 3D analysis by Richard D Hall -- Proof of 9/11 illusion

jammonius

Master Poster
J
Joined
May 29, 2008
Messages
2,708
Synopsis:

A newly posted video, found at the following imaged webpage adds significantly to the accumulating proof that there were NO PLANES on 9/11 and, in particular, NO FLIGHT 175 crashing into the South Tower.

webpage.jpg


The video is entitled

"911 Flight 175 Radar Data 3D Analysis by Richard D Hall"

Original webpage location:

http://www.richplanet.net/911.php

Youtuber:





Sample debunker review by AJM can be found at:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8306845&postcount=779

I did not expect debunkers to agree that Richard D. Hall (RDH) has single handedly falsified the common storyline that Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower.

I am not yet willing to make that claim either. In this OP I make only offer the following summary of my understanding of the video:

1--RDH has provided a detailed radar analysis consisiting in a 22 minute video that relies on analysis of data attributed to, but not strictly prepared by the NTSB and RADES radar data sets, plotted to 26 of the 57 video imagery of the shadow thingy hitting the South Tower. Because the nomenclature "NTSB" implies an official radar determination, I will use the term "attributed to NTSB" so as to be more exact about the sourcing of that data and so as not to buttress its legitimacy. It is not NTSB data. It was done by one individual, assigned a task in a context where NTSB conducted no investigation of the alleged crashes of 9/11 at all.

2 -- RDH confirms the 26 videos follow the trajectory implied by the attirbited to NTSB data. While the video does not mention it, the NTSB did not conduct an investigation; rather, someone associated with NTSB, and allowed to use NTSB letterhead, did a radar study based on data submitted by or through the FBI. The actual source of the data is obscure and is not properly sourced in a way that lends itself to independent verification of the source. Note that term: "independent verification" as it will be mentioned again.

3 -- RDH confirms the trajectory set out in the more precise RADES military radar data DOES NOT match the implied course or trajectory derived from the NTSB data.

4 -- RDH therefore concludes there exists falsification of the claim Flight 175 hit the South Tower, based on the radar data contradiction.

5 -- RDH concludes the second, military radar confirm a stealth aircraft used to project imagery of the shadow thingy seen on teevee AND ALSO seen by some eye witnesses, but not by others who were ideally situated to have seen it, had it been there and had it not been a projected image.

6 -- RDH also challenges the claim of video fakery, based on the matching trajectory in 26 of the 57 videos. The remainder are not specifically analyzed not because they imply fakery, but because they are not clear enough, for one reason or another, to be used in conjunction with the radar data. Images of all 57 are available in the data that RDH provides at the website. RDH sources his video selection to NIST, thus providing an authenticated, validated source of and for the videos he used.

7 -- I have saved the best for last. The data used to prepare the video have been made available for download by anyone. It consists in over 285mb of data. Contrast that with, say, the 9/11 Commission Report, which is a mere 7mb of data. To be sure, the NIST data sets comprise many 100s of mb of data, but NIST did not investigate either the crash into the towers or the phase of destruction of them. In other words, NIST may have provided many 100s of mb of data, but the data tell us next to nothing about what happened at the WTC complex.

So, posters, lurkers, and others, if you want, you can not only watch the video, you can also engage in INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION to see if you either duplicate the results or falsify the results.

I might say that in that respect, this forum has had a number of threads where the issue of 9/11 radar has come up. I know from experience that there are a couple of posters, Beachnut and Fess who frequently post on the theme "what about the radar?" posting the claim as rhetoric and not as proof of a claim.

I also saw one thread involving Flight 77 radar where the name John Farmer was mentioned as though he was actually posting here. If that is the John Farmer who wrote the book The Ground Truth, then the forum has been enhanced by his participation here.

See: Thread title: Radar and NTSB Time Normalization

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=162306&highlight=radar

So, posters, it may be that 911 FLIGHT 175 RADAR DATA 3D ANALYSIS by Richard D Hall falsifies the claim Flight 175 hit the South Tower. In any event, we have a video, backed by 285mb of downloadable data allowing us to trace the steps involved in making the video.

That, in and of itself, is extraordinary.

Blessings
 
Last edited:
I watched this video for the first time yesterday. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.

One of the key points in the video is that the trajectories captured in the videos of 9:03AM are consistent with one another and consistent with a single path from the south all the way up to the WTC. I like it. It's what I've been saying as a criticism of the TV Video Fakery theory and especially Simon Shack's videos. These folks make a claim that apparent inconsistencies in the trajectories captured by different video cameras is evidence that the video footage was altered by the addition of CGI planes inserted onto the video. Various groups, and now Richard D. Hall, have analyzed the videos and concluded that this isn't true. The trajectories are consistent with each other.

Another interesting point is the FBI RADES data that traces a path that is significantly off the common trajectory seen in the videos. They suggest a companion drone flight that projected the 3D image of a plane.

I've been suggesting that differential heating of air could have been the mechanism, or that canceling out light using the "peaks and troughs" of various wavelengths of light. Throw all that stuff out. I like this idea better.
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
4 -- RDH therefore concludes there exists falsification of the claim Flight 175 hit the South Tower, based on the radar data contradiction.
Click to expand...

"Therefore"? "Based on"?

Assuming for the sake of argument that two sets of radar data are contradictory, what additional assumptions are necessary in order to conclude that Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower? (Or is this a form of "falsification" that doesn't entail "not"?)
 
MarkLindeman said:
"Therefore"? "Based on"?

Assuming for the sake of argument that two sets of radar data are contradictory, what additional assumptions are necessary in order to conclude that Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower? (Or is this a form of "falsification" that doesn't entail "not"?)
Click to expand...

You are unclear. Are YOU making a claim; if so, what claim are you making?
 
Ok Jammy when will you be presenting this data to the relatives of Peter Hanson? I'm sure they have a right to know their son could not have called his father from UA 175. Or that he, his daughter and wife could not have died aboard this plane?

When are you doing part 2 where you "prove" AA 11 did not hit the North Tower? Will you be presenting that information to the relatives of Betty Ong? I'm sure they too have a right to know Betty did not die aboard that plane?

This whole no-plane **** is vile, scum, insane.
 
The things you accept as gospel no questions asked and the things you are critical of amaze me, Jamm. Confirmation bias is a wonderful thing, isn't it? If the subject in question supported the "official story" you'd be all over it like white on rice.
 
MarkLindeman said:
"Therefore"? "Based on"?

Assuming for the sake of argument that two sets of radar data are contradictory, what additional assumptions are necessary in order to conclude that Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower? (Or is this a form of "falsification" that doesn't entail "not"?)
Click to expand...

1. Assume that the object was a physical object.
2. Assume that momentum was conserved.
3. Assume that videos accurately captured the trajectory of the object.
4. Look for evidence of conservation of momentum.

Remember that a force of impact in this direction
------------>
is exactly counterbalanced by the force of impact in this direction
<------------ .

If a claim is made that Flight 175 impacted the south face of WTC 2 with a certain large amount of force, that the same force would have been applied to the airplane as was applied to the south face of WTC 2. Any plane would have been broken apart at the south face of WTC 2. None of the videos show this, so we can conclude that no impact took place at the south face of WTC 2.

No impact? No plane. No plane? No hijackers. No hijackers? No Osama bin Laden.
 
Dash80 said:
Ok Jammy when will you be presenting this data to the relatives of Peter Hanson? I'm sure they have a right to know their son could not have called his father from UA 175. Or that he, his daughter and wife could not have died aboard this plane?

When are you doing part 2 where you "prove" AA 11 did not hit the North Tower? Will you be presenting that information to the relatives of Betty Ong? I'm sure they too have a right to know Betty did not die aboard that plane?

This whole no-plane **** is vile, scum, insane.
Click to expand...

Dash,

The above is unworthy, imho. It is a variation on a couple of common debunker tactics, neither of which shed any light at all on what happened that day.

The first tactic can be characterized as the fallacious rhetorical flourish most often called "whaddaboutthepassengers?" which is meant to stop any and all discussion of what happened based on the unstated claim since there were photos and images of a plane and since we were told there were passenger fatalities, it all must have been real.

The second tactic is that of suggesting that sympathy for alleged victims means that one dare not question the events of 9/11. In this instance, one dare not question the validity of the claim Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower.

I do not think it appropriate to use either of those tactics and I am sorry you found it necessary to post on the basis of them.

I would hope you would reconsider and engage in a meaning filled discussion of the information provided by RDH.

Will you? :boggled:
 
Question jammy:

If, as you assert, nobody saw a plane on 9/11, why even bother projecting a hologram from a second plane? Stealth aircraft are visible to the eye btw so now we have two 175s that nobody saw. Could RDH have meant to say "invisible"?
 
WTC Dust said:
1. Assume that the object was a physical object.
2. Assume that momentum was conserved.
3. Assume that videos accurately captured the trajectory of the object.
4. Look for evidence of conservation of momentum.

Remember that a force of impact in this direction
------------>
is exactly counterbalanced by the force of impact in this direction
<------------ .

If a claim is made that Flight 175 impacted the south face of WTC 2 with a certain large amount of force, that the same force would have been applied to the airplane as was applied to the south face of WTC 2. Any plane would have been broken apart at the south face of WTC 2. None of the videos show this, so we can conclude that no impact took place at the south face of WTC 2.

No impact? No plane. No plane? No hijackers. No hijackers? No Osama bin Laden.
Click to expand...

:crazy:
 
twinstead said:
The things you accept as gospel no questions asked and the things you are critical of amaze me, Jamm. Confirmation bias is a wonderful thing, isn't it? If the subject in question supported the "official story" you'd be all over it like white on rice.
Click to expand...

Twinstead,

Imho, the concept of "confirmation bias" more aptly describes the body of work known as 9/11 debunking. The starting point for debunkers is that the events as related in the common storyline are true. Any acknowledgment of some validity to some aspect of doubt about the common storyline is admitted grudingly at best amongst debunkers.

Suffice to say everyone has biases and everyone has prejudices. But, I don't think you want to be seen as claiming a monopoly on neutrality on the side of debunkers, do you? If so, I think you are sadly mistaken. :eye-poppi
 
AJM8125 said:
Question jammy:

If, as you assert, nobody saw a plane on 9/11, why even bother projecting a hologram from a second plane? Stealth aircraft are visible to the eye btw so now we have two 175s that nobody saw. Could RDH have meant to say "invisible"?
Click to expand...

Jammonius isn't saying that. He's saying that all the evidence must be considered, and that the quality of the evidence also must be considered.

If you want to consider the individuals who say they saw a plane, then you have to also consider the individuals who say they didn't see a plane. You also have to think about what kinds of reports are under consideration. Is this an official report from a police officer or fire fighter who was giving the report because his job required it? Or is it a report from an unnamed passerby?

I don't know that I agree with everything that Jammonius says, but at least I read it with an attempt to comprehend it! Get it right, people.
 
Right so he concludes the videos are legit due to his 3d model comparison. Is that self debunking?

Military Primary Radar (PSR) does not have the accuracy of civilian Secondary Radar (SSR). Transponder Data received from a SSR's interrogation is far more accurate than random pinging from primary radar.

The images shown of the wingtips impacts show the wingtips did not cut the column. It did however damage the outer aluminum facade. F=MA. It's not hard.

Oh, and Judy, you can walk on the wings on an aircraft. In fact, Boeing jets have emergency escape routes via doors which open up on top of the wings. Light planes can even handle this, how do you think pilots get into a low wing Piper aircraft?

A jet which has descended rapidly will exceed 500mph. It has nothing to do with horse power of the engines. The Egyptian airliner which was intentionally crashed a few years back broke the sound barrier on its way down. 9/11 CTers never give gravity credit. Go learn physics.

Lol at the end. Stealth technology to not be seen with the naked eye but yet picked up on Military Radar? And then released to the public?..

UA175.jpg


/Thread
 
jammonius said:
Dash,

The above is unworthy, imho. It is a variation on a couple of common debunker tactics, neither of which shed any light at all on what happened that day.

The first tactic can be characterized as the fallacious rhetorical flourish most often called "whaddaboutthepassengers?" which is meant to stop any and all discussion of what happened based on the unstated claim since there were photos and images of a plane and since we were told there were passenger fatalities, it all must have been real.

The second tactic is that of suggesting that sympathy for alleged victims means that one dare not question the events of 9/11. In this instance, one dare not question the validity of the claim Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower.

I do not think it appropriate to use either of those tactics and I am sorry you found it necessary to post on the basis of them.

I would hope you would reconsider and engage in a meaning filled discussion of the information provided by RDH.

Will you? :boggled:
Click to expand...

I'm not going to apologize for caring about victims and their families. At the core of 9/11 is a human tragedy, something you forget with all your bull ****.

The passengers are important, they were people and unless you are completely devoid of any humanity... I'm sure you would feel differently if someone you loved had been aboard those flights. You appear to have implied before that you support the vile vicsim **** to explain away "whathappenedtothepassengers."

I'm sure you would be pretty pissed if a relative of yours was having their grave urinated on in that manner.
 
AJM8125 said:
Question jammy:

If, as you assert, nobody saw a plane on 9/11, why even bother projecting a hologram from a second plane? Stealth aircraft are visible to the eye btw so now we have two 175s that nobody saw. Could RDH have meant to say "invisible"?
Click to expand...

The above saddens me. I have said many,many,many,many times there are valid witnesses who said they saw a plane. I have posted witness accounts of PLANE SPOTTERS. True, I have questioned some witness claims, based on the overall premise of the power of suggestion brought on by teevee, among other factors, like, say, a need to support "my country right or wrong" in the context of warring and of taking sides: You know, refuge in patriotism, and such like.

I'm disappointed that you have posted as you did, AJM.

Not only that, other posters are well aware that I have long asserted that projection and deception are clearly evidenced by the events of 9/11. Some have challenged me to prove the technology exists, which at least implies they were aware of my claims.

What happened to you on this?
 
Dash80 said:
I'm not going to apologize for caring about victims and their families. At the core of 9/11 is a human tragedy, something you forget with all your bull ****.

The passengers are important, they were people and unless you are completely devoid of any humanity... I'm sure you would feel differently if someone you loved had been aboard those flights. You appear to have implied before that you support the vile vicsim **** to explain away "whathappenedtothepassengers."

I'm sure you would be pretty pissed if a relative of yours was having their grave urinated on in that manner.
Click to expand...

Dash,

We are off on the wrong foot entirely. You are wrong to conclude that I have any less sympathy, empathy and concern for 9/11 victims than you do. Simply wrong. Not only that, you didn't even ask me if I have sympathy for victims and you have neither reason nor rhyme to think I lack sympathy.

I know it is hard for some to grasp, but examining 9/11 in the context of recognizing the plain as day deception involved in the common storyline is, in actuality, the sympathetic, patriotic, honorable thing to do. But, what is not honorable to do, imho, is to wrap oneself in the flag of patriotism and/or the cloak of sympathy and use that as a weapon against those that one disagrees with.

Samuel Johnson said it best: "Patriotism (and claim of monopoly on sympathy I might add) is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

Please don't go too far down the path of trying to monopolize patriotism and sympathy. It is unworthy to do so.
 
jammonius said:
The starting point for debunkers is that the events as related in the common storyline are true. 1


Any acknowledgment of some validity to some aspect of doubt about the common storyline is admitted grudingly at best amongst debunkers.2
Click to expand...

1 This always surprises me. I was one of those people who patiently waited for the government to tell us what happened on 9/11. Finally, when the 9/11 Commission Report came out, I was disappointed because they didn't even analyze the event that needed analyzing more than anything else. They didn't analyze the "collapse" of the WTC. At least they didn't tell a bunch of lies about it, which is a good thing.

The 9/11 Commission had two endpoints that they tried to connect: an airplane impact and the demise of the WTC. They failed because of the starting point. The omission of any discussion of the failure of the buildings is only logical if you start out with an airplane crash. They couldn't do it, so they didn't.

Which brings me to my point about this. When I say the WTC turned into foam, you don't have a right to say that this contradicts the official story about it, because the official story doesn't report at all on the demise of the WTC. My story starts at the moment the buildings began to fail. I don't care a bit about the presence or lack of airplanes, and the government doesn't have an official position on what I'm studying.


2 This also surprises me. I listen to the debunkers and question their automatic (and fierce) acceptance of the official story. The government isn't perfect, and George W. Bush's administration was noted for being especially anti-science. When new physics was needed to understand the events, why would you expect a dummy who constantly downgraded our country's science programs to get things right? Was GWB the kind of man who would seek out the best scientists and made sure they did their jobs during the investigation? No. He refused to conduct an investigation until the family members shamed him into doing so, and then he botched that up.
 
jammonius said:
The above saddens me. I have said many,many,many,many times there are valid witnesses who said they saw a plane. I have posted witness accounts of PLANE SPOTTERS. True, I have questioned some witness claims, based on the overall premise of the power of suggestion brought on by teevee, among other factors, like, say, a need to support "my country right or wrong" in the context of warring and of taking sides: You know, refuge in patriotism, and such like.

I'm disappointed that you have posted as you did, AJM.

Not only that, other posters are well aware that I have long asserted that projection and deception are clearly evidenced by the events of 9/11. Some have challenged me to prove the technology exists, which at least implies they were aware of my claims.

What happened to you on this?
Click to expand...

Well jammy you can be pretty certain I don't support anything out of patriotism.

Firstly I'm British and secondly I'm not even patriotic about my own country. Quite frankly it's a mess, politically we have our heads stuck up America's ass and the Royal Family is a joke.

So what do you suggest my motives are?
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
Dash,

We are off on the wrong foot entirely. You are wrong to conclude that I have any less sympathy, empathy and concern for 9/11 victims than you do. Simply wrong. Not only that, you didn't even ask me if I have sympathy for victims and you have neither reason nor rhyme to think I lack sympathy.

I know it is hard for some to grasp, but examining 9/11 in the context of recognizing the plain as day deception involved in the common storyline is, in actuality, the sympathetic, patriotic, honorable thing to do. But, what is not honorable to do, imho, is to wrap oneself in the flag of patriotism and/or the cloak of sympathy and use that as a weapon against those that one disagrees with.

Samuel Johnson said it best: "Patriotism (and claim of monopoly on sympathy I might add) is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

Please don't go too far down the path of trying to monopolize patriotism and sympathy. It is unworthy to do so.
Click to expand...

It's unworthy to piss in plane victim's graves, yet you do this. See my above post about patriotism too while you're at it.
 
WTC Dust said:
Jammonius isn't saying that. He's saying that all the evidence must be considered, and that the quality of the evidence also must be considered.

If you want to consider the individuals who say they saw a plane, then you have to also consider the individuals who say they didn't see a plane. You also have to think about what kinds of reports are under consideration. Is this an official report from a police officer or fire fighter who was giving the report because his job required it? Or is it a report from an unnamed passerby?

I don't know that I agree with everything that Jammonius says, but at least I read it with an attempt to comprehend it! Get it right, people.
Click to expand...

Prosecutor: There are 20 eye-witnesses that saw the defendant shoot and kill his wife. He has admitted to the crime. We have video from surveillance cameras that clearly show him committing the crime.

Defense Attorney: That means 7,014,999,540+ people didn't see him do it.

Judge: Case dismissed!!!

:crazy:
 
cjnewson88 said:
Right so he concludes the videos are legit due to his 3d model comparison. Is that self debunking?

Military Primary Radar (PSR) does not have the accuracy of civilian Secondary Radar (SSR). Transponder Data received from a SSR's interrogation is far more accurate than random pinging from primary radar.

The images shown of the wingtips impacts show the wingtips did not cut the column. It did however damage the outer aluminum facade. F=MA. It's not hard.

Oh, and Judy, you can walk on the wings on an aircraft. In fact, Boeing jets have emergency escape routes via doors which open up on top of the wings. Light planes can even handle this, how do you think pilots get into a low wing Piper aircraft?

A jet which has descended rapidly will exceed 500mph. It has nothing to do with horse power of the engines. The Egyptian airliner which was intentionally crashed a few years back broke the sound barrier on its way down. 9/11 CTers never give gravity credit. Go learn physics.

Lol at the end. Stealth technology to not be seen with the naked eye but yet picked up on Military Radar? And then released to the public?..

[qimg]http://i962.photobucket.com/albums/ae107/sniperNZSAS/UA175.jpg[/qimg]

/Thread
Click to expand...


Well folks, CJ claims, and I quote:

"Military Primary Radar (PSR) does not have the accuracy of civilian Secondary Radar (SSR)".

I think that claim is untenable. But, that is neither here nor there. What RDH said about the RADES data is that it is based on precise GPS positioning, contained in the data set itself and therefore subject to independent verification. On the other hand, the NTSB data is obscurely sourced and has to be taken as a given.

So, by that measure, the RADES data is the more accurate.

As to your other quibbles, I am not sure what interest you are advancing in those comments.

In fact, what I'd like to ask is this:

WHAT SOURCES DO DEBUNKERS RELY ON FOR RADAR ANALYSIS AND CLAIMS?

None have been referenced so far.
 
swright777 said:
Prosecutor: There are 20 eye-witnesses that saw the defendant shoot and kill his wife. He has admitted to the crime. We have video from surveillance cameras that clearly show him committing the crime.
Click to expand...

You'd have to add in that there were no bullet wounds on the body to make this analogy fit 9/11. You can't prove a plane crash destroyed the WTC without evidence of a plane crash.
 
jammonius said:
Dash,

...You are wrong to conclude that I have any less sympathy, empathy and concern for 9/11 victims than you do
Click to expand...

I conclude that it doesn't much matter what you truly believe, you certainly piss on the memory of all the victims who died in the planes by "posting up claims" that deny any planes crashed on 9/11.

It's vile, it's sickening and you can't weasel out of it. So own it.
 
WTC Dust said:
You'd have to add in that there were no bullet wounds on the body to make this analogy fit 9/11. You can't prove a plane crash destroyed the WTC without evidence of a plane crash.
Click to expand...

There was a bullet wound. That's what happens when you shoot someone. Don't try to make me out to be a no-bullet-wounder.
 
WTC Dust said:
You'd have to add in that there were no bullet wounds on the body to make this analogy fit 9/11. You can't prove a plane crash destroyed the WTC without evidence of a plane crash.
Click to expand...

Oh my word. You've found the deep end now.

No evidence of a plane crash? Well, except for all the evidence of plane crashes that day.

Quit urinating on all those passengers, the flight crews, those that died in the buildings . . . You too jammy. If you don't know better, you should.
 
Dash80 said:
It's unworthy to piss in plane victim's graves, yet you do this. See my above post about patriotism too while you're at it.
Click to expand...

My heart drops every time I receive this type of accusation. The attacks on NYC rocked my world. They caused me a significant amount of emotional pain, but I didn't let the pain stop me. Supporters of the hijack conspiracy don't have a monopoly on feelings or motivation. I wonder about anyone who would use such cruel language toward another person.
 
jammonius said:
Well folks, CJ claims, and I quote:

"Military Primary Radar (PSR) does not have the accuracy of civilian Secondary Radar (SSR)".

I think that claim is untenable. But, that is neither here nor there....
Click to expand...
It's here. It's quite here, seeing as you just made a counterclaim.
 
brazenlilraisin said:
I conclude that it doesn't much matter what you truly believe, you certainly piss on the memory of all the victims who died in the planes by "posting up claims" that deny any planes crashed on 9/11.

It's vile, it's sickening and you can't weasel out of it. So own it.
Click to expand...

If they died in some other way, would that change things? I don't hear Jammonius saying these people are still alive or that they didn't die on 9/11.
 
WTC Dust said:
You'd have to add in that there were no bullet wounds on the body to make this analogy fit 9/11. You can't prove a plane crash destroyed the WTC without evidence of a plane crash.
Click to expand...

There were no holes in the buildings then?

:crazy:
 
swright777 said:
There was a bullet wound. That's what happens when you shoot someone. Don't try to make me out to be a no-bullet-wounder.
Click to expand...

OK, then. Your analogy doesn't fit 9/11. It would be hard to convict a man of killing his wife with a gun, even if there were eyewitness testimony and video evidence of him shooting a gun, if the body didn't have any bullet wounds.
 
WTC Dust said:
If they died in some other way, would that change things? I don't hear Jammonius saying these people are still alive or that they didn't die on 9/11.
Click to expand...

He's implied things to that effect. Those people died on those planes, some called from them. You are the one trying to change that.
 
WTC Dust said:
You'd have to add in that there were no bullet wounds on the body to make this analogy fit 9/11. You can't prove a plane crash destroyed the WTC without evidence of a plane crash.
Click to expand...

But there IS evidence of a plane crash. All you can do is claim its faked.
 
Dash80 said:
There were no holes in the buildings then?

:crazy:
Click to expand...

Holes, yes, but there weren't any planes stuck in them, and videos of this "plane crash" show the "plane" passing all the way into WTC 2 nose to tail without damage. That isn't a plane crash, my friend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom