Honest question about 911

[Skylar]

did you actually watch the news coverage of the day? There were LOTS of sounds of explosions and an abundance of reporters talking about the explosions and the secondary explosions and the speculation that there may be devices in the buildings not to mention a seasoned news reporter who said that the fall of WTC7 constituted the third time today that a building has "collapsed" reminiscent of the events we have all seen were an old building is intentionally destroyed by well-placed dynamite.

Yet the videos record no such explosion. When the collapse began it didn't even interrupt the conversations that occurred around it. There were no explosions preceding the collapse of the WTC 7.

Here's actual controlled demolition.



Here's the collapse of the WTC 7.



With the WTC 7 collapse initiating in silence. No explosions, no explosives. As there's no such thing as 'silent explosives'. To say nothing of the fact that there were no cut girders. No cut girders, no controlled demolition.

And of course, the FDNY anticipated the collapse of the WTC 7 by hours.....due to fire and structural damage. They put a transit on the building. They measured its bulging, its buckling, its leaning, its slow structural failure over hours that only got worse as the fires increased. And they were able to predict the structural failure4 of the WTC 7 to within about an hour.

You ignore the FDNY too. For no particular reason. That's irrational and illogical. And simply kills your conspiracy.

 

[n0spam4me]

A!, does anybody get it that the sound-track to video can be edited, modified ( whatever .... ) and then presented to the public as the real-deal? The fact is that lots of people, including fire fighters, reported hearing explosions ( and fire fighters should know what they are talking about ) the fact is that in the cadence of the described explosions, it indicates clearly that the destruction of the towers and 7 had been an engineered event.

 

[Skylar]

A!, does anybody get it that the sound-track to video can be edited, modified ( whatever .... ) and then presented to the public as the real-deal? The fact is that lots of people, including fire fighters, reported hearing explosions ( and fire fighters should know what they are talking about ) the fact is that in the cadence of the described explosions, it indicates clearly that the destruction of the towers and 7 had been an engineered event.

Do you have any evidence that the sound track was edited or modified? Of course not. You simply ignore any source that doesn't ape your conspiracy.

You ignored all 43 videos of the south tower impact with flight 175. Every single one, insisting they were all faked. Why? Because they don't ape your absurd belief that no plane hit the towers.

You ignored every picture of debris from every flight. You ignored every witness account of the planes impacting the towers or the pentagon. You ignored every radar record and black box. You ignored every report showing the damage inflicted was consistent with a plane impact. From any source. You ignored Leslie Robertson, the WTC designer who said that the plane impacts would have brought down the buildings. You ignored the FDNY who anticipated the collapse of the WTC 7 by hours....due to fire and structural damage.

At every turn when faced with disparate, overlapping and utterly compelling evidence that simply destroys your silly conspiracy, you choose to ignore all evidence that contradicts you and keep furiously polishing your little turd of a theory.

Your entire basis of perception is ignoring anything that disagrees with you. That's a lovely mix of naked, willful ignorance and a fallacy of logic known as confirmation bias. Making your argument both illogical and irrational.

 

[SAYIT]

A!, does anybody get it that the sound-track to video can be edited, modified ( whatever .... ) and then presented to the public as the real-deal? The fact is that lots of people, including fire fighters, reported hearing explosions ( and fire fighters should know what they are talking about ) the fact is that in the cadence of the described explosions, it indicates clearly that the destruction of the towers and 7 had been an engineered event.

Do you have any evidence that the sound track was edited or modified? Of course not. You simply ignore any source that doesn't ape your conspiracy.

You ignored all 43 videos of the south tower impact with flight 175. Every single one, insisting they were all faked. Why? Because they don't ape your absurd belief that no plane hit the towers.

You ignored every picture of debris from every flight. You ignored every witness account of the planes impacting the towers or the pentagon. You ignored every radar record and black box. You ignored every report showing the damage inflicted was consistent with a plane impact. From any source. You ignored Leslie Robertson, the WTC designer who said that the plane impacts would have brought down the buildings. You ignored the FDNY who anticipated the collapse of the WTC 7 by hours....due to fire and structural damage.

At every turn when faced with disparate, overlapping and utterly compelling evidence that simply destroys your silly conspiracy, you choose to ignore all evidence that contradicts you and keep furiously polishing your little turd of a theory.

Your entire basis of perception is ignoring anything that disagrees with you. That's a lovely mix of naked, willful ignorance and a fallacy of logic known as confirmation bias. Making your argument both illogical and irrational.

It seems obvious that NoSpammy makes a fool of himself because he enjoys being abused and eagerly soaks up that which he gets here. I do note that no one - on a board where dedicated CTs meet to swat spit - reacts positively to his BS or his child-like obstinance.
Evidently even his fellow foil-haters find him silly.

 

[n0spam4me]

A!, does anybody get it that the sound-track to video can be edited, modified ( whatever .... ) and then presented to the public as the real-deal? The fact is that lots of people, including fire fighters, reported hearing explosions ( and fire fighters should know what they are talking about ) the fact is that in the cadence of the described explosions, it indicates clearly that the destruction of the towers and 7 had been an engineered event.

Do you have any evidence that the sound track was edited or modified? Of course not. You simply ignore any source that doesn't ape your conspiracy.

You ignored all 43 videos of the south tower impact with flight 175. Every single one, insisting they were all faked. Why? Because they don't ape your absurd belief that no plane hit the towers.

You ignored every picture of debris from every flight. You ignored every witness account of the planes impacting the towers or the pentagon. You ignored every radar record and black box. You ignored every report showing the damage inflicted was consistent with a plane impact. From any source. You ignored Leslie Robertson, the WTC designer who said that the plane impacts would have brought down the buildings. You ignored the FDNY who anticipated the collapse of the WTC 7 by hours....due to fire and structural damage.

At every turn when faced with disparate, overlapping and utterly compelling evidence that simply destroys your silly conspiracy, you choose to ignore all evidence that contradicts you and keep furiously polishing your little turd of a theory.

Your entire basis of perception is ignoring anything that disagrees with you. That's a lovely mix of naked, willful ignorance and a fallacy of logic known as confirmation bias. Making your argument both illogical and irrational.

It seems obvious that NoSpammy makes a fool of himself because he enjoys being abused and eagerly soaks up that which he gets here. I do note that no one - on a board where dedicated CTs meet to swat spit - reacts positively to his BS or his child-like obstinance.
Evidently even his fellow foil-haters find him silly.

Thats right, shoot the messenger

Can anyone produce the PROOF, that is a document that proves the tests for explosives were carried out by somebody at ground zero and that said scientific tests prove that there were no explosives used to destroy WTC1, 2 or 7?
where is it?
also where are the documentary pix of ground zero?
random snap-shots do not qualify, where are the DOCUMENTARY pix,
every disaster gets documented in pix, the Police or Fire dept or somebody should have had a photographer on scene.
where are the pix?

 

[Skylar]

Thats right, shoot the messenger

So that's the best you've got? Roll on your back, ignore the theory killing flaws in your debunked conspiracy....and play victim?

Our 'messenger' ignored every of 43 different videos of the south tower impact. Every view, every video, every live feed, every source, without exception. Insisting they were all 'fakes'. And every eye witness to the south tower impact, despite there being thousands of them.

All 'because'. That's not looking for the truth. That's desperately clinging to a silly conspiracy that you want to be true more than you want to know what actually happened.

Can anyone produce the PROOF, that is a document that proves the tests for explosives were carried out by somebody at ground zero and that said scientific tests prove that there were no explosives used to destroy WTC1, 2 or 7?

I've already cited a review of the dust samples that found no residue of explosives. This in an analysis so precise that it was able to detect prescription medication in the WTC pharmacy. And what did you do?

You ignored it entirely.

Remember when you demanded we give you pictures of the debris from the planes....and we provided you with entire galleries of images of such pictures, images so compelling and so specific that they were accepted as evidence in criminal court. And what did you do?

You ignored them all.

Remember when the FDNY cited fire and structural damage as the cause of the WTC 7? When they put a transit on the building and measured its slow structural failure for hours as it burned? What did you do with the quote after quote from FDNY fire fighters and fire chiefs verifying this?

You ignored every single one of them, without exception.

Just like you did every eye witness of the plane impacts, every report, every investigation, every radar record, every genetic test, every black box, every piece of physical evidence that contradicts you.

Do you honestly think that we can't look at this overwhelming evidence just because you pretend none of it exists? Why would any rational person ignore what you do?

 

[n0spam4me]

of the alleged 43 videos of the impact of "FLT175" into the south tower, how many show a view that has the south tower obscured by the north tower or other skyscraper?

also, may I ask if seeing something impact the south wall of the south tower is proof that it was a hijacked airliner?

"I've already cited a review of the dust samples that found no residue of explosives. This in an analysis so precise that it was able to detect prescription medication in the WTC pharmacy. And what did you do?"

Link to data please ......

 

[Skylar]

of the alleged 43 videos of the impact of "FLT175" into the south tower, how many show a view that has the south tower obscured by the north tower or other skyscraper?

You're insisting that ALL of them are faked. Every last one. Including those that aren't obscured by another building. From every source and every angle. You ignored all live feeds, all camcorders, the videos from every new sources, everything. And even more mind numbing, you ignored every witness. Every single witness in NY who watched the south tower hit by a plane you dismiss as a plant.

Dude, there were thousands of people watching. The North Tower was already burning. It was international news on virtually every channel. And EVERY witness, EVERY video was faked?

That's just stupidly and pointlessly complicated. Why not just crash the plane into the building? Your conspiracy is not only laughably fact free, it doesn't make the slightest sense. And is contradicted by overwhelming evidence.

And you can't back up your claim that they are all faked. Oh, you'll allude to it. You'll insinuate it. But when pressed, you've got nothing. Just your insistence that anything that doesn't confirm what you already believe must be ignored.

That's plain old confirmation bias. Its an obtuse fallacy of logic....and the beating heart of your silly, stupid little conspiracy.

 

[n0spam4me]

how many people actually went on record saying that they for guaranteed certain saw a commercial airliner crash into either WTC 1 or 2 ? How many people on live TV interviews stated that they saw was most probably a small commuter jet or even no aircraft at all but simply an explosion at the WTC? The eye-witness testimony is NOT conclusive on this subject and the TV record as for the "live feed" coverage ALL of those pictures show the south tower obscured by something at the point where the alleged "FLT175" crashed into it and then after the fact, the Michael Hezarkhani and Evan Fairbanks video(s) surfaced after the event. The fact is that commercial airliners are not designed to be missiles and can not be expected to perform as missiles. There is another explanation for what went down, the fact that the images of the airliners were seen to totally penetrate the wall completely disappearing inside for both "FLT11" & "FLT175", raises all sorts of questions because at the very least it is highly improbable that two different airliner hits at two different elevations in the tower, ( therefore thicker box-column steel for the lower down event. ) and have both do exactly the same thing as in making the airliner disappear and in fact doing such a good job of making the airliner disappear as to make the "black boxes" go away also.

 

[Skylar]

how many people actually went on record saying that they for guaranteed certain saw a commercial airliner crash into either WTC 1 or 2 ?

You've ignored EVERY witness. Every video. Every live feed. From any source and every angle. Your sole criteria of you ignoring a witness or a video or a picture....is that they don't say what you believe. That's it. You define credibility as agreement with what you already believe. You've even ignored your own sources as fakes if they debunk your silly nonsense.

That's a fallacy of logic called confirmation bias. And its worthless, as it doesn't actually tell you anything about the real world or what actually happened. It only tells you what you already believe.

You've given us no reason to believe that all 43 videos were faked. That all the live feeds were faked. That all the witnesses were faked. That all the reports were faked. That all the investigations were faked. That all the genetic tests were faked. That all the radar records were faked. That all the pictures were faked. That all the debris was faked. That all the black boxes were faked.

You've simply 'said' they are. Citing yourself. With your sole basis of dismissal being that you don't want to believe them. That's circular nonsense. No one gives a shit what you want to believe. They care what you can prove. And you can't back any of your dismissals of overwhelming evidence.

Try again.

 

[n0spam4me]

"You've given us no reason to believe that all 43 videos were faked." How about the fact that the alleged airliner crash as shown constitutes a violation of the laws of physics?

 

[Skylar]

"You've given us no reason to believe that all 43 videos were faked." How about the fact that the alleged airliner crash as shown constitutes a violation of the laws of physics?

And what about a plane smashing into a building 'defies the laws of physics'? And of course remember that you've also ignored every witness. Every single one. With your sole criteria for dismissing them being that the don't say what you believe.

Surely you realize that agreement with what you choose to believe doesn't actually establish the laws of physics or credibility. And that your summary dismissal of any evidence that contradicts you as 'fake' is nothing more than confirmation bias, one of the oldest and most obtuse fallacies of logic there is.

 

[CAPTCHATHIS]

"You've given us no reason to believe that all 43 videos were faked." How about the fact that the alleged airliner crash as shown constitutes a violation of the laws of physics?

You're alleging that no planes hit the towers?? While I'm willing to keep my mind open to all ideas and I am never surprised by the ability to deceive the masses, unless you have something more than claiming it to be a violation of the laws of physics I will have to assume you are working with Sklyr.
Why not focus on the many provable lies, anomalies, inaccuracies and improbabilities.
My apologies if I've misinterpreted your post.

 

[Skylar]

"You've given us no reason to believe that all 43 videos were faked." How about the fact that the alleged airliner crash as shown constitutes a violation of the laws of physics?

You're alleging that no planes hit the towers?? While I'm willing to keep my mind open to all ideas and I am never surprised by the ability to deceive the masses, unless you have something more than claiming it to be a violation of the laws of physics I will have to assume you are working with Sklyr.
Why not focus on the many provable lies, anomalies, inaccuracies and improbabilities.
My apologies if I've misinterpreted your post.

Dude, once you've committed to ignoring anything that doesn't match what you want to believe, the only question is degrees. Your own is simply astonishing.

We have debris everywhere from the Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon crash. We have bodies of Flight 77 victims in the Pentagon. We have literally dozens of witnesses, as the plane flew low over I-395 in the middle of a traffic jam. We have debris that not only matches the same plane that American Airlines used for Flight 77, but the exact varient of that plane that American Airlines purchased. We have witness after witness sifting through seats and bodies from a passenger airliner. We have the black boxes. We have genetic tests matching bodies in the Pentagon with the Flight 77 passengers and crew. We have the ASCE report of the pentagon damage affirming that the damage was consistent with an impact from a passenger airliner.

You ignore it all.

Making your dumbfounded rejection of another variant of the 'no plane theory' a bit of the pot calling the kettle black. As you're both using the exact same bullshit process; ignore anything that contradicts you.

 

[n0spam4me]

"You've given us no reason to believe that all 43 videos were faked." How about the fact that the alleged airliner crash as shown constitutes a violation of the laws of physics?

You're alleging that no planes hit the towers?? While I'm willing to keep my mind open to all ideas and I am never surprised by the ability to deceive the masses, unless you have something more than claiming it to be a violation of the laws of physics I will have to assume you are working with Sklyr.
Why not focus on the many provable lies, anomalies, inaccuracies and improbabilities.
My apologies if I've misinterpreted your post.

This is a rather thorny bit but I'll wade on in ..... The video that alleges to show "FLT175" hitting the south wall of the South tower is NOT a commercial airliner, it may have been an image of a commercial airliner to cover for a missile, or anything at all, or there may have been nothing except for explosives in the building. however I will stick to my original statement that there were NO airliners hijacked on 9/11/2001. The other bits that are rather much open to speculation as to HOW it was done, but its clear what was not done, and that is the crashing of a commercial airliner into the tower(s). its just all too *&^%$#@! convenient for both airliners to simply disappear inside the towers without having so much energy as to break out an "exit wound" in the opposite wall of the tower. The goal was to make the airliner disappear because there really wasn't any airliner to begin with. likewise with the Shanksville and Pentagon crashes, and taking the Pentagon crash as an example, totally improbable that an airliner could strike the Pentagon at the angle that was supposed to have been and then have the aircraft or at least 99% of said aircraft disappear inside the Pentagon, how convenient for the official story tellers, not having to deal with any aircraft wreckage on the Pentagon lawn.
The entire OFFICIAL story is just that a story, a made up fantasy that some creative writer hatched and then the mainstream propaganda machine sold it to the public. is truth stranger ....
and Yes I've heard it MANY times that REAL truthers accept the hijacked airliners bit because its real and there are other bits that need to be addressed, however I call 'em like I see 'em .....
it is what it is.....

also, to address my motivation for saying that "FLT175" is blatantly bogus, the aircraft crash event is really not a crash at all, the airliner or what is presented as an airliner, simply as much as melts into the side of the skyscraper. and indeed does so with out any visible change in velocity. Busting a hole in the tower wall took energy to accomplish and the ONLY energy available from "FLT175" would be from its momentum and therefore using up that energy to breach the tower wall would cause the airliner to slow down, and indeed to slow down significantly. therefore "FLT175" was FAKE! and no matter how loud & long the protest of "it would require too many people (etc....) "
the facts are in the video.

 

[n0spam4me]

"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

and as we all know ..... Big Brother is a Voyeur!

 

[Faun]

"You've given us no reason to believe that all 43 videos were faked." How about the fact that the alleged airliner crash as shown constitutes a violation of the laws of physics?

You're alleging that no planes hit the towers?? While I'm willing to keep my mind open to all ideas and I am never surprised by the ability to deceive the masses, unless you have something more than claiming it to be a violation of the laws of physics I will have to assume you are working with Sklyr.
Why not focus on the many provable lies, anomalies, inaccuracies and improbabilities.
My apologies if I've misinterpreted your post.

This is a rather thorny bit but I'll wade on in ..... The video that alleges to show "FLT175" hitting the south wall of the South tower is NOT a commercial airliner, it may have been an image of a commercial airliner to cover for a missile, or anything at all, or there may have been nothing except for explosives in the building. however I will stick to my original statement that there were NO airliners hijacked on 9/11/2001. The other bits that are rather much open to speculation as to HOW it was done, but its clear what was not done, and that is the crashing of a commercial airliner into the tower(s). its just all too *&^%$#@! convenient for both airliners to simply disappear inside the towers without having so much energy as to break out an "exit wound" in the opposite wall of the tower. The goal was to make the airliner disappear because there really wasn't any airliner to begin with. likewise with the Shanksville and Pentagon crashes, and taking the Pentagon crash as an example, totally improbable that an airliner could strike the Pentagon at the angle that was supposed to have been and then have the aircraft or at least 99% of said aircraft disappear inside the Pentagon, how convenient for the official story tellers, not having to deal with any aircraft wreckage on the Pentagon lawn.
The entire OFFICIAL story is just that a story, a made up fantasy that some creative writer hatched and then the mainstream propaganda machine sold it to the public. is truth stranger ....
and Yes I've heard it MANY times that REAL truthers accept the hijacked airliners bit because its real and there are other bits that need to be addressed, however I call 'em like I see 'em .....
it is what it is.....

also, to address my motivation for saying that "FLT175" is blatantly bogus, the aircraft crash event is really not a crash at all, the airliner or what is presented as an airliner, simply as much as melts into the side of the skyscraper. and indeed does so with out any visible change in velocity. Busting a hole in the tower wall took energy to accomplish and the ONLY energy available from "FLT175" would be from its momentum and therefore using up that energy to breach the tower wall would cause the airliner to slow down, and indeed to slow down significantly. therefore "FLT175" was FAKE! and no matter how loud & long the protest of "it would require too many people (etc....) "
the facts are in the video.

What you're asserting is that "some" group somehow acquired every single video and altered every single one of them so precisely, that the plane striking the south tower appeared exactly the same in every single video. Even more astonishing, and unbelievable, than that assertion ... you're insanity includes the notion that not a single person among the many dozens who recorded that event noticed either their recording were stolen or modified.

Being of sane and sound mind myself, I am curious ... how does a disturbed mind resolve that insanity?

 

[SAYIT]

"You've given us no reason to believe that all 43 videos were faked." How about the fact that the alleged airliner crash as shown constitutes a violation of the laws of physics?

You're alleging that no planes hit the towers?? While I'm willing to keep my mind open to all ideas and I am never surprised by the ability to deceive the masses, unless you have something more than claiming it to be a violation of the laws of physics I will have to assume you are working with Sklyr.
Why not focus on the many provable lies, anomalies, inaccuracies and improbabilities.
My apologies if I've misinterpreted your post.

This is a rather thorny bit but I'll wade on in ..... The video that alleges to show "FLT175" hitting the south wall of the South tower is NOT a commercial airliner, it may have been an image of a commercial airliner to cover for a missile, or anything at all, or there may have been nothing except for explosives in the building. however I will stick to my original statement that there were NO airliners hijacked on 9/11/2001. The other bits that are rather much open to speculation as to HOW it was done, but its clear what was not done, and that is the crashing of a commercial airliner into the tower(s). its just all too *&^%$#@! convenient for both airliners to simply disappear inside the towers without having so much energy as to break out an "exit wound" in the opposite wall of the tower. The goal was to make the airliner disappear because there really wasn't any airliner to begin with. likewise with the Shanksville and Pentagon crashes, and taking the Pentagon crash as an example, totally improbable that an airliner could strike the Pentagon at the angle that was supposed to have been and then have the aircraft or at least 99% of said aircraft disappear inside the Pentagon, how convenient for the official story tellers, not having to deal with any aircraft wreckage on the Pentagon lawn.
The entire OFFICIAL story is just that a story, a made up fantasy that some creative writer hatched and then the mainstream propaganda machine sold it to the public. is truth stranger ....
and Yes I've heard it MANY times that REAL truthers accept the hijacked airliners bit because its real and there are other bits that need to be addressed, however I call 'em like I see 'em .....
it is what it is.....

also, to address my motivation for saying that "FLT175" is blatantly bogus, the aircraft crash event is really not a crash at all, the airliner or what is presented as an airliner, simply as much as melts into the side of the skyscraper. and indeed does so with out any visible change in velocity. Busting a hole in the tower wall took energy to accomplish and the ONLY energy available from "FLT175" would be from its momentum and therefore using up that energy to breach the tower wall would cause the airliner to slow down, and indeed to slow down significantly. therefore "FLT175" was FAKE! and no matter how loud & long the protest of "it would require too many people (etc....) "
the facts are in the video.

What you're asserting is that "some" group somehow acquired every single video and altered every single one of them so precisely, that the plane striking the south tower appeared exactly the same in every single video. Even more astonishing, and unbelievable, than that assertion ... you're insanity includes the notion that not a single person among the many dozens who recorded that event noticed either their recording were stolen or modified.

Being of sane and sound mind myself, I am curious ... how does a disturbed mind resolve that insanity?

Indeed, inquiring minds have repeatedly asked our CTs how they reconcile the gapping holes in their scenarios but alas, none seems willing or capable of explaining their remarkable tunnel vision.

 

[n0spam4me]

"You've given us no reason to believe that all 43 videos were faked." How about the fact that the alleged airliner crash as shown constitutes a violation of the laws of physics?

You're alleging that no planes hit the towers?? While I'm willing to keep my mind open to all ideas and I am never surprised by the ability to deceive the masses, unless you have something more than claiming it to be a violation of the laws of physics I will have to assume you are working with Sklyr.
Why not focus on the many provable lies, anomalies, inaccuracies and improbabilities.
My apologies if I've misinterpreted your post.

This is a rather thorny bit but I'll wade on in ..... The video that alleges to show "FLT175" hitting the south wall of the South tower is NOT a commercial airliner, it may have been an image of a commercial airliner to cover for a missile, or anything at all, or there may have been nothing except for explosives in the building. however I will stick to my original statement that there were NO airliners hijacked on 9/11/2001. The other bits that are rather much open to speculation as to HOW it was done, but its clear what was not done, and that is the crashing of a commercial airliner into the tower(s). its just all too *&^%$#@! convenient for both airliners to simply disappear inside the towers without having so much energy as to break out an "exit wound" in the opposite wall of the tower. The goal was to make the airliner disappear because there really wasn't any airliner to begin with. likewise with the Shanksville and Pentagon crashes, and taking the Pentagon crash as an example, totally improbable that an airliner could strike the Pentagon at the angle that was supposed to have been and then have the aircraft or at least 99% of said aircraft disappear inside the Pentagon, how convenient for the official story tellers, not having to deal with any aircraft wreckage on the Pentagon lawn.
The entire OFFICIAL story is just that a story, a made up fantasy that some creative writer hatched and then the mainstream propaganda machine sold it to the public. is truth stranger ....
and Yes I've heard it MANY times that REAL truthers accept the hijacked airliners bit because its real and there are other bits that need to be addressed, however I call 'em like I see 'em .....
it is what it is.....

also, to address my motivation for saying that "FLT175" is blatantly bogus, the aircraft crash event is really not a crash at all, the airliner or what is presented as an airliner, simply as much as melts into the side of the skyscraper. and indeed does so with out any visible change in velocity. Busting a hole in the tower wall took energy to accomplish and the ONLY energy available from "FLT175" would be from its momentum and therefore using up that energy to breach the tower wall would cause the airliner to slow down, and indeed to slow down significantly. therefore "FLT175" was FAKE! and no matter how loud & long the protest of "it would require too many people (etc....) "
the facts are in the video.

What you're asserting is that "some" group somehow acquired every single video and altered every single one of them so precisely, that the plane striking the south tower appeared exactly the same in every single video. Even more astonishing, and unbelievable, than that assertion ... you're insanity includes the notion that not a single person among the many dozens who recorded that event noticed either their recording were stolen or modified.

Being of sane and sound mind myself, I am curious ... how does a disturbed mind resolve that insanity?

Indeed, inquiring minds have repeatedly asked our CTs how they reconcile the gapping holes in their scenarios but alas, none seems willing or capable of explaining their remarkable tunnel vision.

the ONLY argument against the totally bogus nature of the "FLT175" video is the incredulity of some people.

 

[SAYIT]

"You've given us no reason to believe that all 43 videos were faked." How about the fact that the alleged airliner crash as shown constitutes a violation of the laws of physics?

You're alleging that no planes hit the towers?? While I'm willing to keep my mind open to all ideas and I am never surprised by the ability to deceive the masses, unless you have something more than claiming it to be a violation of the laws of physics I will have to assume you are working with Sklyr.
Why not focus on the many provable lies, anomalies, inaccuracies and improbabilities.
My apologies if I've misinterpreted your post.

This is a rather thorny bit but I'll wade on in ..... The video that alleges to show "FLT175" hitting the south wall of the South tower is NOT a commercial airliner, it may have been an image of a commercial airliner to cover for a missile, or anything at all, or there may have been nothing except for explosives in the building. however I will stick to my original statement that there were NO airliners hijacked on 9/11/2001. The other bits that are rather much open to speculation as to HOW it was done, but its clear what was not done, and that is the crashing of a commercial airliner into the tower(s). its just all too *&^%$#@! convenient for both airliners to simply disappear inside the towers without having so much energy as to break out an "exit wound" in the opposite wall of the tower. The goal was to make the airliner disappear because there really wasn't any airliner to begin with. likewise with the Shanksville and Pentagon crashes, and taking the Pentagon crash as an example, totally improbable that an airliner could strike the Pentagon at the angle that was supposed to have been and then have the aircraft or at least 99% of said aircraft disappear inside the Pentagon, how convenient for the official story tellers, not having to deal with any aircraft wreckage on the Pentagon lawn.
The entire OFFICIAL story is just that a story, a made up fantasy that some creative writer hatched and then the mainstream propaganda machine sold it to the public. is truth stranger ....
and Yes I've heard it MANY times that REAL truthers accept the hijacked airliners bit because its real and there are other bits that need to be addressed, however I call 'em like I see 'em .....
it is what it is.....

also, to address my motivation for saying that "FLT175" is blatantly bogus, the aircraft crash event is really not a crash at all, the airliner or what is presented as an airliner, simply as much as melts into the side of the skyscraper. and indeed does so with out any visible change in velocity. Busting a hole in the tower wall took energy to accomplish and the ONLY energy available from "FLT175" would be from its momentum and therefore using up that energy to breach the tower wall would cause the airliner to slow down, and indeed to slow down significantly. therefore "FLT175" was FAKE! and no matter how loud & long the protest of "it would require too many people (etc....) "
the facts are in the video.

What you're asserting is that "some" group somehow acquired every single video and altered every single one of them so precisely, that the plane striking the south tower appeared exactly the same in every single video. Even more astonishing, and unbelievable, than that assertion ... you're insanity includes the notion that not a single person among the many dozens who recorded that event noticed either their recording were stolen or modified.

Being of sane and sound mind myself, I am curious ... how does a disturbed mind resolve that insanity?

Indeed, inquiring minds have repeatedly asked our CTs how they reconcile the gapping holes in their scenarios but alas, none seems willing or capable of explaining their remarkable tunnel vision.

the ONLY argument against the totally bogus nature of the "FLT175" video is the incredulity of some people.

Or so says the peddler of the "no planes were hijacked on 9/11" CT.