Absolute proof of video fakery

[Mercutio]

Several people said they saw missiles. Several people say they just saw the building explode. Do you believe them?

Gee, if only there were a way of quantifying "several", and comparing it to the number who saw planes. Or to know whether the people who "just saw the building explode" were looking up to where the plane would have been, but saw blue sky and then the explosion? Or to see whether there are plane parts or missile parts or no parts at all! Too bad we can only see evidence we already believe in, and only critically examine the stuff that other people believe in. Dontcha just hate that we are built that way?

Keep up the good work--this stuff is just gold!!!

 

[Pardalis]

Several people said they saw missiles.

Like who?

Several people say they just saw the building explode. Do you believe them?

Well, the buildings did explode in a way. You know, these big fireballs are explosions. If one had missed the planes coming in, then it's a reasonable way to interpret their recollection.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Several people said they saw missiles. Several people say they just saw the building explode. Do you believe them?

So your claim is that millions of people all mistakenly saw a plane hit the building? And that it just happened to be caught on every TV camera, but that's the result of a big conspiracy that involved every news network in the world and every news person involved with those news organization that just happened to mimic what millions of people saw in person. And not only saw but felt and heard?

Perhaps you can go into more detail about how they created the sounds and the feelings people felt of the plane flying over?

PS - People saw the buildings explode because there was a large explosions from the impact, so yes I believe them. I don't believe the people who claimed to see a missile because I along with millions of others saw no such thing and there is no video evidence to back it up either.

 

[mchapman]

Like who?

Like the people who actually reported it to the police, and the police went to investigate at the woolworth building. And the people who spoke to the reporter who said live on air that "some people said they thought they saw a missile"

 

[Drudgewire]

Like who?

Ah, here come the "it came in like a missile" quotes. It's almost as sad as when we hear a "it sounded like a bomb" quote and these dummies take it literally.

 

[Pardalis]

Like the people who actually reported it to the police, and the police went to investigate at the woolworth building. And the people who spoke to the reporter who said live on air that "some people said they thought they saw a missile"

Could you provide a link?

And what about the rest of my post?

 

[HyJinX]

Like the people who actually reported it to the police, and the police went to investigate at the woolworth building. And the people who spoke to the reporter who said live on air that "some people said they thought they saw a missile"

Can you cite these people? Are their words documented? Or are you just throwing out information that others have told you.

 

[mchapman]

Could you provide a link?

And what about the rest of my post?

http://www.orbwar.com/woolworth/

"Someone had fired missiles at the World Trade Center's north tower from atop the nearby Woolworth Building."

"...we just had a second explosion, possibly a missile from the roof of the Woolworth Building."

Port Authority Police Officer

"The first one they think was a guy shooting the missiles off the Woolworth Building."

WTC Police Channel 07

As we pulled ‘round the corner, we stopped the rig, and a cop walked over to us and said, `I saw them shoot a missile launcher off that [Woolworth] building, you guys better be careful up there.’

NYC Fireman

 

[Pardalis]

http://www.orbwar.com/woolworth/

I had never heard of that one. Boy, these theories get more moronic by the minute.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

http://www.orbwar.com/woolworth/

the first 2 quotes are from an articled entitled "Innuendo, Erroneous Reports Abound In WTC Transcripts"

do the math

 

[mchapman]

I had never heard of that one. Boy, these theories get more moronic by the minute.

So were all these witnesses lying? There seems a lot more consensus on the missile than there does on planes. How are quotes from people a theory? Can you explain them? If you don't believe they are true then explain you are happy to believe the people who saw planes but not the people who saw missiles?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Instead of being an uncivil, cheap-shot taking bastard and saying "if people said this, it should be easy to link to those testimonies" - something any of us would be entitled to do, given his own insistence on seeing our links - I would rather respond to such "missile" claims this way:

The wreckage was authenticated as being that of a jet plane, not a missile. Furthermore, radar data as well as video footage - the same footage you claim as fake yet cannot prove as such - also demonstrates this. As well as the recovery of personal effects and human remains from hijackers on the jets (I do not recall if human remains of passengers were recovered; someone else can fill me in on that). So given that, why would you even claim that any such testimony of a missile - assuming it is genuinely a case of people honestly thinking they saw a missile - has any traction? Pieces of evidence do not stand separately, and missile claims fail in the face of other pieces of evidence, even if the witnesses making the claims are sincere in their beliefs (and assuming this isn't another case of mistaken similies and quotemining from conspiracy peddlers; we cannot tell if that's the case in the absence of any links to such testimony). So why try this track? There's nothing to gain from it; missile claims are falsified by multiple, independent yet converging threads of evidence, no matter what witnesses supposedly say. Such testimony would be rendered null by the physical and electronic evidence, as well as the weight of evidence from other witnesses. So why try going this way? There's no "gotcha" there.

ETA: By the way, since we were so kind as to provide our own links to eyewitness testimony, it would be kind in turn to provide links to people claiming they witnesses a missile. Just to maintain the spirit of fair play and all.

Thank you.

 

[Pardalis]

So were all these witnesses lying? There seems a lot more consensus on the missile than there does on planes.

No, alot more people saw a plane, videos show planes, the missile thingy involves alot more than just eyewitnesses. It adds incredibly more complexity to the whole sequence of events and a whole new set of evidence is required to even consider it.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

So were all these witnesses lying? There seems a lot more consensus on the missile than there does on planes. How are quotes from people a theory? Can you explain them? If you don't believe they are true then explain you are happy to believe the people who saw planes but not the people who saw missiles?

none of those appear to be from anyone who actually saw a missile, one of them is a secondhand account from a firefighter stating a police officer saw a missile, but the link to the source is dead and neither the firefighter nor the police he refers to is named

im afraid youll have to do better than that

 

[mchapman]

Instead of being an uncivil, cheap-shot taking bastard and saying "if people said this, it should be easy to link to those testimonies" - something any of us would be entitled to do, given his own insistence on seeing our links - I would rather respond to such "missile" claims this way:

The wreckage was authenticated as being that of a jet plane, not a missile. Furthermore, radar data as well as video footage - the same footage you claim as fake yet cannot prove as such - also demonstrates this. As well as the recovery of personal effects and human remains from hijackers on the jets (I do not recall if human remains of passengers were recovered; someone else can fill me in on that). So given that, why would you even claim that any such testimony of a missile - assuming it is genuinely a case of people honestly thinking they saw a missile - has any traction? Pieces of evidence do not stand separately, and missile claims fail in the face of other pieces of evidence, even if the witnesses making the claims are sincere in their beliefs (and assuming this isn't another case of mistaken similies and quotemining from conspiracy peddlers; we cannot tell if that's the case in the absence of any links to such testimony). So why try this track? There's nothing to gain from it; missile claims are falsified by multiple, independent yet converging threads of evidence, no matter what witnesses supposedly say. Such testimony would be rendered null by the physical and electronic evidence, as well as the weight of evidence from other witnesses. So why try going this way? There's no "gotcha" there.

ETA: By the way, since we were so kind as to provide our own links to eyewitness testimony, it would be kind in turn to provide links to people claiming they witnesses a missile. Just to maintain the spirit of fair play and all.

Thank you.

Which serial numbered parts were officially confirmed as belonging to flights 11 and 175?

 

[fullflavormenthol]

...There seems a lot more consensus on the missile than there does on planes....

How the hell can you even justify such a moronic statement? You are saying that we should take potentially erronous reports at face value. While ignoring thousands of eye witnesses, the 50+ testimonies you ignored, and the video evidence from multiple sources; but instead take these handful of reports to the police at face value?

Let me ask you a question. Given the inexpensive nature of home video cameras, and the fact that so many people focused on the towers with there cameras. Why isn't there at least one video of a missle hitting the towers? Why isn't there one single video of a person launching missles at the towers?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Which serial numbered parts were officially confirmed as belonging to flights 11 and 175?

I'm afraid I don't know. I merely lean on the witness and passenger testimony, the radar data, the admission of the airlines that their jets were missing, the discovery of jet plane parts, the Air Traffic Controller testimony, etc. to falsify the notion that a missile was used.

But, again, I'm interested in seeing the counter testimony. Again, since you made the claim that some witnesses saw a missile, and since we were willing to provide our own links to eyewitness testimony regarding the impacts, it would be most kind if you'd provide your own link(s) to missile testimony. So we could judge for ourselves how well it stacks up.

Again, thank you in advance for providing that.

 

[TexasJack]

So were all these witnesses lying? There seems a lot more consensus on the missile than there does on planes. How are quotes from people a theory? Can you explain them? If you don't believe they are true then explain you are happy to believe the people who saw planes but not the people who saw missiles?

Of course you are taking this out of context:
"Mr. Chairman, on the morning of 9/11, I was on the World Trade Center
Concourse when the first plane hit. I responded immediately to the World Trade Center
Police Desk, which was in the immediate vicinity on the plaza level and was told that the
police had a report that a missile had been fired at the World Trade Center from the
Woolworth building. A PA detective and I immediately left the police desk and headed
out to the plaza through Five WTC to see what had really happened. We observed the
north face of the north tower with a large gash across it and multiple floors fully engulfed
in flames. We realized that this was not a missile, based on what our minds could
conceive of the damage, and then we noticed part of a large plane’s wheel assembly on
the plaza. We dragged the assembly back to the police desk and informed the desk
officer that a large commercial plane had hit the tower."
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing11/reiss_statement.pdf

There were many erroneous reports that day, does that make them all true?

 

[Drudgewire]

How the hell can you even justify such a moronic statement?

It took seven pages before you thought to ask this? v

v

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Of course you are taking this out of context:
"Mr. Chairman, on the morning of 9/11, I was on the World Trade Center
Concourse when the first plane hit. I responded immediately to the World Trade Center
Police Desk, which was in the immediate vicinity on the plaza level and was told that the
police had a report that a missile had been fired at the World Trade Center from the
Woolworth building. A PA detective and I immediately left the police desk and headed
out to the plaza through Five WTC to see what had really happened. We observed the
north face of the north tower with a large gash across it and multiple floors fully engulfed
in flames. We realized that this was not a missile, based on what our minds could
conceive of the damage, and then we noticed part of a large plane’s wheel assembly on
the plaza. We dragged the assembly back to the police desk and informed the desk
officer that a large commercial plane had hit the tower."
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing11/reiss_statement.pdf

There were many erroneous reports that day, does that make them all true?

All right. TexasJack provided one for mchapman. As we can see, this one is not a good one, because it's second- or third-hand, and can be the result of a misunderstanding. So it's perhaps not the best example of mchapman's thesis, since nothing about it can falsify the latter recovery of physical evidence, or conclusions drawn from studying electronic evidence.

Possibly mchapman has some better examples?