9/11: How they Faked the Videos
- Thread starter yankee451
- Start date
Axxman300
Philosopher
Your angle of approach is way off:
Should be:
Source: https://www.history.navy.mil/resear...on-attack/oh-reference/pentagon-graphics.html
Here's over 87 eye-witness accounts of AA77 hitting the Pentagon. (87 is more than 3):
There is a picture of a damaged wooden pole, sheared in half, taken from the Annex looking toward the Pentagon. Problem is it's in the A&E Truth system, and I can't copy it.
Either way, CIT was debunked long ago, and the physical evidence supersedes eye-witness testimony every time.
Should be:
Source: https://www.history.navy.mil/resear...on-attack/oh-reference/pentagon-graphics.html
Here's over 87 eye-witness accounts of AA77 hitting the Pentagon. (87 is more than 3):
There is a picture of a damaged wooden pole, sheared in half, taken from the Annex looking toward the Pentagon. Problem is it's in the A&E Truth system, and I can't copy it.
Either way, CIT was debunked long ago, and the physical evidence supersedes eye-witness testimony every time.
Axxman300
Philosopher
You're research skills are lacking :
The worst part of your inability to understand the physic involved with this crash is your unwillingness to learn, and accept the facts.
Axxman300
Philosopher
This clown is all over Reddit, and anywhere someone brings up 9-11 on the web. Same claims, zero facts.
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
This is totally believable.
Psychological benefits of believing conspiracy theories
There is a difference between people who merely believe conspiracy theories, and those such as yourself who actively promote them. The mere believers tend to be younger, as young people are generally less cynical and more receptive to new ideas. When I was young I believed everything I read, including stories about UFOs, ghosts, and political conspiracies. As I grew up and learned about how adults promote this nonsense for personal gain I became more skeptical.
If you were young on 9/11 then I would expect you to grow out of it. However as people get older their thinking becomes more rigid. They are more likely to retain beliefs and seek to strengthen them in response to a world that is increasingly passing them by. Older people also tend to lose purpose in life and sometimes feel a need to 'shake it up', especially after they retire.
Your continued promotion of a conspiracy theory that most people have abandoned indicates a need to boost your ego, further supported by your coming here to do it. Going toe to toe with some of the smartest skeptics on the planet must make you feel important, and the responses you are getting surely reinforce your sense of being right. The ironical thing is that those skeptics have fallen right into your trap, thinking they are debating someone who is simply deluded and might be reasoned with - when your actual motive has nothing to do with belief.
Last edited:
Your spelling skills are lacking.
That photo is of a Pentagon employee, not an AA77 passenger.
There are also several other photos of identified bodies of Pentagon employees.
No such photos of identified plane passengers have been released.
No.
The worst part is YOUR inability to comprehend the elementary physics which goes like this:
If a 155 foot plane is flying in one place, then it cannot have simultaneously flown 1,000 feet further south.
There was a 40 foot construction trailer parked in front of the wall, exactly where the plane's left wing **allegedly** hit.
Newly released photo collection shows 40 foot construction trailer, floor and wheels uncrushed by left plane wing, at 9:44 a.m., between Jackie Kidd's car and the hole in the Pentagon.
Physics says that no 757's left wing could have hit this wall.
Physics insists that a 90 ton jet cannot fly in 2 places at one time.
Totally not interested in your psychobabble and silly attempt to analyse me according to your own biased mindset, which is your chosen version of deflection from the sound evidence I have produced here.
Axxman300
Philosopher
Rule 12 and ignoring modbox
You have nothing.
The physical evidence does not match your claim. You're work is sloppy, and poorly researched. At every step you've lied by omission.
Why come back here with the same lies you posted years ago? Nobody takes you seriously, you are low hanging fruit. Nothing new to prove your ridiculous theory.
The facts are easy to understand. AA77 was hijacked and flown into the Pentagon. That's it, that's what happened. Nothing was faked or staged. With each passing year we get new photographs, and new firsthand accounts, and yet the facts never change...why is that? Where are the newly discovered photos of lamp posts being staged and the cab being moved as you claim? Where are the confessions? How have all the various misdeeds of te CIA, FBI, and Bush NSC all come to light, yet none of the MASSIVE crew needed to pull off your version of events has yet to come forward? Why is that?
Your whole premise is flawed. Few people saw the picture of the damaged cab. The image was never played up by US media or the government. Honestly, in the big picture of that day, nobody cared.
The physical evidence does not match your claim. You're work is sloppy, and poorly researched. At every step you've lied by omission.
Why come back here with the same lies you posted years ago? Nobody takes you seriously, you are low hanging fruit. Nothing new to prove your ridiculous theory.
The facts are easy to understand. AA77 was hijacked and flown into the Pentagon. That's it, that's what happened. Nothing was faked or staged. With each passing year we get new photographs, and new firsthand accounts, and yet the facts never change...why is that? Where are the newly discovered photos of lamp posts being staged and the cab being moved as you claim? Where are the confessions? How have all the various misdeeds of te CIA, FBI, and Bush NSC all come to light, yet none of the MASSIVE crew needed to pull off your version of events has yet to come forward? Why is that?
Your whole premise is flawed. Few people saw the picture of the damaged cab. The image was never played up by US media or the government. Honestly, in the big picture of that day, nobody cared.
Edited by jimbob:
rule 12 removed
Last edited by a moderator:
So, even though I have posted dozens of relevant photos, and carefully laid out valid NEW evidence, still all you have to counter with is vacuous insults and lying accusations in your childish attempt to intimidate.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Can we see the video of Lloyde England's cab being picked up on a trailer, driven 400 yards in the wrong direction down the highway, and unloaded in a different location please? The one you said you had but haven't posted yet?
Dave
Dave
Axxman300
Philosopher
Being intimidated is a choice.
This is all recycled from your ancient posts. No new witnesses. More importantly - no photos or video of the cab being moved, and no evidence of staging of any kind. I posted links containing over 200 eye-witness accounts of either seeing AA77 fly into the Pentagon, or being inside the building when it crashed. You have found three people who have accounts that you claim prove the plane came from a different direction, but anyone who has conducted interviews knows that eye-witness testimony can be flawed. Even in the statements in my links there are multiple versions of the same story where altitude, heading, and speed vary with the person telling their story. This is a problem with human perception, but it doesn't change the physical evidence.
To the driver's credit, being a pro, he got the lampost out of his car with help from fellow motorists, and then got his car out of the way. 18 inches to the right and he dies. You leave this part out.
And this is yet another flaw. They kill all those people in the Pentagon, but leave this guy alone? Why leave a "witness"?
Last edited:
bknight
Master Poster
This all-regurgitated images with no "new" evidence, just rehashing the tired belief from at least 10 years ago. I agree with you and have told her the same thing eyewitness testimony is secondary to the evidence found on the scene. There are no pole launching vehicle that put a lamppost into England's cab. His testimony to CIT was flawed probably by scared to death in this near miss. In fact even though you haven't mentioned CIT, yet their whole investigation was flawed from the beginning as they stated they were out to disprove the narrative of the Pentagon hit.
So wrong.
I came here to show the NEW EVIDENCE proving that Father Stephen McGraw, who was "just a few feet away from the taxi," was NOT where CIT placed him, on the bridge *or even "bussed in later"), but north of the heliport.
I know this for a fact because I identified Father McGraw in Steve Riskus's first photo from 9:38 a.m. (3 minutes earlier than he appeared in an amateur video taken from the northern Pentagon lawn).
I then went to a lot of trouble a few months ago, to contact McGraw. I spoke to him at length, and exchanged numerous messages with him.
He had never seen the photo or video previously, but he confirmed that he was the man in the images, that was his car, that was his location, that was the view he had, and those were the times when he was doing those things.
He also confirmed having seen the plane very close behind him as it crossed the highway, side on, perpendicular to the wall, NOT far away over the bridge, on a steep angle.
He volunteered more information which demolishes CIT's false claim that he wasn't even there, due to photos taken of him about 10 minutes after the fireball by Mark Faram, who said he saw McGraw stepping over the guardrail onto the lawn as he arrived from the Navy Annex.
In fact, McGraw was then stepping over the guardrail for the second time. He had become concerned, as he waited on the lawn for victims to be brought out, about having left his car across the highway. So he went back to secure it, and then returned to the Triage area, as Faram observed.
But none of you guys can even begin to address this NEW EVIDENCE.
And don't imagine for a second that this is the only NEW EVIDENCE discovered in the past few years.
Obviously you have not even bothered to read a word of my posts here.
I can go head to head with you, discussing every witness you may have quoted. I assure you I know far more about this than you do.
I have actually put in the countless hours to STUDY and investigate all witness testimony.
All you have done is uncritically accept the media and government accounts at face value, when you think they reinforce your opinion.
It is not the sheer number of witnesses claimed, but those witnesses' locations, relative to what they said.
Or did not say, in the many examples where we only have a journalist's third-person version to go by.
For instance - What is the significance of Vilma Calix's (first-person) testimony?
Last edited:
Wrong.
Being intimidatING is the choice that all you blokes make.
You literally think that your habitual bullying and bluster is a substitute for intelligent, rational debate.
Forums have pretty much had their day, unfortunately. Numerous once thriving forums have crashed and burned in recent years.
So the rigid old fossils here will soon be gone the way of the dinosaurs.
And you are all doing your utmost to hasten the demise of this forum.
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 87,518
You haven't posted anything you didn't already post.