9/11: How they Faked the Videos

[Safe-Keeper]

This proves the plane cannot have hit the wall.

And yet your photos prove it did.

Is this going to be like a Vixen thread, where she simultaneously argues no humans landed on the Moon, while also trying to pick apart details like how they for example took photos while on the lunar surface?

I know 9/11 truthers haven't managed to come up with a single coherent theory or timeline even after a quarter century, but usually individual truthers don't contradict themselves.

 

[bknight]

Do try to actually comprehend what I post before making silly comments.

This is NOT "my angle of approach"!!!

Can you not read where I have clearly labelled that red line,

"HEMPHILL'S LINE OF SIGHT" ???

Why do you continually post images with the orange trajectory? It is impossible for a 767 to fly that course, you have been told that fact over and over. Try to learn a little something in your older years than when it was first posted some 10(?) yeas ago.

 

[bknight]

Is this going to be like a Vixen thread, where she simultaneously argues no humans landed on the Moon, while also trying to pick apart details like how they for example took photos while on the lunar surface?

I know 9/11 truthers haven't managed to come up with a single coherent theory or timeline even after a quarter century, but usually individual truthers don't contradict themselves.

She has been posted this bovine excrement for at least 10 years, IIRC. So yes exactly similar to Vixen.

 

[Axxman300]

Is this going to be like a Vixen thread, where she simultaneously argues no humans landed on the Moon, while also trying to pick apart details like how they for example took photos while on the lunar surface?

I know 9/11 truthers haven't managed to come up with a single coherent theory or timeline even after a quarter century, but usually individual truthers don't contradict themselves.

She's all over Reddit and other message boards with this silliness. She, like all Truthers, is oblivious to the many basic contradictions of her theory.

The US Government, being all-powerful, faked 9-11. In this case, staging a plane crash into the Pentagon. The same government that has used remote control aircraft of all sizes for sixty years as of 2001:


This test footage is one Truthers universally hate, but is relevant here:


But of course the shadow government pulled it off for whatever nefarious reasons, but then somehow overlooked Afghanistan, and Iraq. In the case of Iraq, these clever masterminds forgot to plant WMDs for the military to "find", thus justifying the invasion early on. Oh no, we wandered the desert like the Israelites for a decade, and 20 years in Afghanistan. Hell, we didn't even get a deal on Persian rugs.

But no, 9-11 was the shadow gub'mint's masterpiece.

Here comes Ruby. She found three people who tell a different story, and the shadow guys are on the defensive. Yup, three whole people out of over 2,000 civilian and military employees of the Pentagon, and surrounding buildings. Forget the fact that in the links I posted of oral histories many of the witness statements vary from the known facts. Perception is a strange thing.

RG is your standard CTist. Her theory falls apart against the basic facts. Not sure why she'd come back after years. No opinions will change.

I guess as a ghost hunter I should feel better my hobby has more credibility than 9-11 Troofers.

 

[bknight]

She's all over Reddit and other message boards with this silliness. She, like all Truthers, is oblivious to the many basic contradictions of her theory.

The US Government, being all-powerful, faked 9-11. In this case, staging a plane crash into the Pentagon. The same government that has used remote control aircraft of all sizes for sixty years as of 2001:


This test footage is one Truthers universally hate, but is relevant here:


But of course the shadow government pulled it off for whatever nefarious reasons, but then somehow overlooked Afghanistan, and Iraq. In the case of Iraq, these clever masterminds forgot to plant WMDs for the military to "find", thus justifying the invasion early on. Oh no, we wandered the desert like the Israelites for a decade, and 20 years in Afghanistan. Hell, we didn't even get a deal on Persian rugs.

But no, 9-11 was the shadow gub'mint's masterpiece.

Here comes Ruby. She found three people who tell a different story, and the shadow guys are on the defensive. Yup, three whole people out of over 2,000 civilian and military employees of the Pentagon, and surrounding buildings. Forget the fact that in the links I posted of oral histories many of the witness statements vary from the known facts. Perception is a strange thing.

RG is your standard CTist. Her theory falls apart against the basic facts. Not sure why she'd come back after years. No opinions will change.

I guess as a ghost hunter I should feel better my hobby has more credibility than 9-11 Troofers.

I ran into her circa 2017 @UM while fighting Derek Willis and his Apollo hoax beliefs. She was intractable believed that eye witness testimonies are the best method of determining the perceived incidents. For example all of the statements from people at or nearby the Citgo station all describe a flight path the traveled "north" of the station. There were never light poles on the Pentagon's lawn, because none of the eyewitnesses remembered seeing them whether they were asked or not. The England story is so convoluted and then the CIT "interviews" of England investigation 8 years after the incident are at best comical. Yet she believes all of these , the same aspects of her new evidence, interviewing a man 25 years after the incident and believing everything he says, mostly because that interview(s) corroborate her beliefs. No one will get her to understand or change her opinion.

 

[Axxman300]

She was intractable believed that eye witness testimonies are the best method of determining the perceived incidents.

I like NFL football and Major League Baseball. I'm sure there are plenty of FIFA and other sports fans posting here too. Think about how many BAD CALLS referees and umpires make each week. Many of them are only a few feet, less than a meter away, and yet miss a foul, or make a bad call about a ball, or foot not being within bounds, or being out of bounds. Many of us here who are sports fans have survived a few traumatic bad calls, or non-calls that cost our beloved team(s) a game, or even a championship. I'm not talking about creative interpretations of a strike-zone, I'm talking about the most flagrant failures to make a call, or ignoring player misconduct.

We've all seen it. We've all yelled at the TV while inventing new swear words.

The NFL had to institute INSTANT REPLAY to help their referees do their jobs.

Human perception is fallible. These professionals have only one job. They're not checking their phones, daydreaming behind the wheel, chatting with friends, or any of the other normal human activities that cloud perception. They are watching the game, specifically their assigned segements. And yet they can blow it. So when someone gets in my face about "Eye-Witnesses" I always laugh.

 

[bknight]

I tried telling her that many times, I might just have told the wall in front of me.

 

[Dave Rogers]

A good many years ago, I was driving to Cambridge, when a car in front and to the left swerved slightly to the right, sharp left, down a shallow embankment, crashed through a wooden fence, and came to a halt in a field by the road. Immediately beyond the crash site was an overbridge followed by a lay by, where I stopped to call emergency services. I remembered the spot very clearly, so the next time I came by that way I looked for the break in the fence. It wasn't there, and neither was the lay by. Every time I came by I had another look, and could never actually find the exact arrangement of broken fence, bridge and lay by I clearly recalled. Eventually I think I figured out that the lay by was two bridges past the broken fence, which itself was somewhere different to the place I remembered and thought I recognised. Clearly I hadn't retained the memory of the landmarks as clearly as I thought, and my brain had reconstructed the nearest it could come up with. And that's what memory does; it confuses details, then makes up new details to fix the problem. Trying to recall fine details like which bridge (or, for example, which overhead highway sign gantry) is which after 25 years is a waste of effort. I have no doubt that the car crashed right in front of me, just as every single Pentagon witness has no doubt Flight 77 hit the Pentagon; recalling the finer details, though, is adamant futile endeavour.

Dave

 

[Myriad]

View attachment 77976

Yellow line: the people in the general area of the three dots would see the plane from about 90 degrees off its port side as it crossed the highway, and about 45 degrees off the tail as it hit the wall.

Green line: the people in the general area of the three dots would see the plane from about 30 degrees off its nose as it crossed the highway, and about 90 degrees off its port side as it hit the wall.

So which course would they more likely describe as "perpendicular?" They were witnessing a rapid and shocking event, not doing trigonometry. How do you think they visually estimated the angle of the plane, or the angle of the wall relative to the path of the plane? Without answers to that, it doesn't even matter which highway stanchion they were watching from.

 

[Axxman300]

People in general, and Truthers in particular, tend to underestimate how fast 530mph actually is. What people saw all depends on where and when they visually acquired the plane. The folks who had a five seconds or more would see things differently than the people it passed over (within 100 meters either way), who would have had maybe 2 seconds to observe. Pedestrians are killed by trains because they misjudge the speed, and that's far slower than AA77.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

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.

You haven't presented any sound evidence. You ignore or dismiss the sound evidence because it doesn't fit your silly conspiracy theory. Why do you do this?

Seriously, why do you prefer a tiny amount of flawed evidence over the overwhelming evidence that shows the 'official narrative' is true? Is it because:-
1. Your IQ is so low that you cannot tell the difference between weak and strong evidence?
2. You prefer the conspiracy theory because it's more exciting and/or feeds your distrust of authority?
3. You're trolling - either for attention, or because you want to feel superior or just enjoy upsetting people?

If it's something else then please tell us, but don't say it's evidence-based because we all know that isn't true.

 

[Steve]

You haven't presented any sound evidence. You ignore or dismiss the sound evidence because it doesn't fit your silly conspiracy theory. Why do you do this?

Seriously, why do you prefer a tiny amount of flawed evidence over the overwhelming evidence that shows the 'official narrative' is true? Is it because:-
1. Your IQ is so low that you cannot tell the difference between weak and strong evidence?
2. You prefer the conspiracy theory because it's more exciting and/or feeds your distrust of authority?
3. You're trolling - either for attention, or because you want to feel superior or just enjoy upsetting people?

If it's something else then please tell us, but don't say it's evidence-based because we all know that isn't true.

I think it is #1, And #2, And #3.

 

[rubygray]

A good many years ago, I was driving to Cambridge, when a car in front and to the left swerved slightly to the right, sharp left, down a ...
... Trying to recall fine details like which bridge (or, for example, which overhead highway sign gantry) is which after 25 years is a waste of effort. I have no doubt that the car crashed right in front of me, just as every single Pentagon witness has no doubt Flight 77 hit the Pentagon; recalling the finer details, though, is adamant futile endeavour.

Dave

And yet, after all that irrelevant nonsense, you still have not attempted to explain how for example, Father Stephen McGraw has now been proven BY A PHOTO to have been over 1,000 feet further north of the overpass bridge, than where the official story has always located him.

You ignore the fact that a PHOTO taken within 45 seconds of the fireball, nails down his location to the 3rd white traffic lane marker north of the Columbia Pike exit road overhead sign.






It has nothing to do with a faulty memory.

He always described having had the sensation of the plane flying close behind him, overhead.



Everyone up until 2026 was happy to believe that this meant he was directly beneath the diagonal flightpath across the bridge.

But now you all are obliged to imagine that he could have had this "overhead" sensation from a plane flying 1,000 feet behind him.



And McGraw has now personally confirmed that when he looked behind him, he saw the whole plane broadside on. That is, crossing the highway essentially perpendicular to it, rather than at the acute angle of the diagonal cross-bridge flightpath.

Father McGraw told me that THIS is exactly how he saw the plane.



Had the plane been crossing the bridge more than 1,000 feet south of him, he would scarcely have heard it, and barely have seen it.

 

[bknight]

And you ignore the damage trajectory into the Pentagon, why is that?

 

[rubygray]

And you ignore the damage trajectory into the Pentagon, why is that?

I'm not ignoring it.
Certainly damage existed.
However it was caused.

What I am doing is trying to open closed minds to the fact that there is another world of contradictory evidence which YOU ALL ignore.

I look at both sides.

If A ≠ B,
But B is demonstrably true,
Then A is necessarily false.

YOU ALL complacently and uncritically accept whatever the established authorities told you.

Rather a poor approach for skeptics.

 

[Steve]

Hey rubygray, produce one passenger of American Airlines flight 77 that landed safely that day and lived to talk about it. Just 1. Can you do that? The passenger list is publicly available.

This nibbling around the edges of what a few people mistakenly thought they saw that day is only evidence of two things - how a traumatic experience can affect the memory of some people, and how fallible human memories actually can be.

 

[rubygray]

Hey rubygray, produce one passenger of American Airlines flight 77 that landed safely that day and lived to talk about it. Just 1. Can you do that? The passenger list is publicly available.

Yet another deflection from the topic you are all so afraid to touch.

This nibbling around the edges of what a few people mistakenly thought they saw

It's you guys who are "nibbling round the edges".

I have dedicated thousands of hours to in depth research of every detail I can find about the testimony and locations of witnesses, and the imagery of that day during the first ~40 minutes.

People like you keep trotting out some such figure as "160 witnesses saw ..." etc., imagining that a big number of unqualified testimonies proves you correct.

But none of you can compile a coherent list of all those witnesses in support of the official flightpath.

The fact is that NOBODY saw the plane fly across the overpass bridge.

The only witness to have claimed that on 9/11, Mike Walter, had reneged on his original story by breakfast TV the next morning, and was soon describing how the plane "turned and banked right".
Thus he was a North of Citgo eyewitness.
I can go on for as many witnesses as anyone cares to name.
I KNOW where the witnesses were, and what they said.
You do not.

Still, NOBODY has addressed the fact that STEVE RISKUS TOOK THAT PHOTO OF FATHER MCGRAW WITHIN 45 SECONDS, verifying the locations of Riskus, McGraw and England.

Since the taxi was demonstrably beside the cemetery when hit by a pole, therefore the official flight path is fraudulent, and the photos of the taxi on the bridge were staged according to a predetermined plan which cannot have been orchestrated by Arab hijackers.

And people dare to suggest that it is MY IQ that dips into the 2 figures!! Ha ha!!

None of you has any aptitude for logic and critical thinking.
None of you has the attention span or the courage to perform independent RESEARCH FOR YOURSELVES, nor to ADDRESS THE TOPIC.

 

[Steve]

Yet another deflection from the topic you are all so afraid to touch.


It's you guys who are "nibbling round the edges".

I have dedicated thousands of hours to in depth research of every detail I can find about the testimony and locations of witnesses, and the imagery of that day during the first ~40 minutes.

People like you keep trotting out some such figure as "160 witnesses saw ..." etc., imagining that a big number of unqualified testimonies proves you correct.

But none of you can compile a coherent list of all those witnesses in support of the official flightpath.

The fact is that NOBODY saw the plane fly across the overpass bridge.

The only witness to have claimed that on 9/11, Mike Walter, had reneged on his original story by breakfast TV the next morning, and was soon describing how the plane "turned and banked right".
Thus he was a North of Citgo eyewitness.
I can go on for as many witnesses as anyone cares to name.
I KNOW where the witnesses were, and what they said.
You do not.

Still, NOBODY has addressed the fact that STEVE RISKUS TOOK THAT PHOTO OF FATHER MCGRAW WITHIN 45 SECONDS, verifying the locations of Riskus, McGraw and England.

Since the taxi was demonstrably beside the cemetery when hit by a pole, therefore the official flight path is fraudulent, and the photos of the taxi on the bridge were staged according to a predetermined plan which cannot have been orchestrated by Arab hijackers.

And people dare to suggest that it is MY IQ that dips into the 2 figures!! Ha ha!!

None of you has any aptitude for logic and critical thinking.
None of you has the attention span or the courage to perform independent RESEARCH FOR YOURSELVES, nor to ADDRESS THE TOPIC.

A lot of irrelevant words to say "no, I cannot." A plane piloted by terrorists hit the pentagon. People in the plane and in the building died. Where people who didn't die were standing is trivially unimportant. Your "dedicated thousands of hours" could have been spent doing something productive with your wasted life. I do pity you.

ETA Suppose you do manage to convince some poor soul here that there is actually some substance to your fantasies. What then? Do you expect anything substantial to emerge? Do you think this forum in any way has influence to initiate any sort of investigation? You must be able to think of a place where your rants could be more productive? Perhaps I am naive to think you have an endgame here but if you do perhaps you could enlighten us.

 

[GlennB]

Yet another deflection from the topic you are all so afraid to touch.

It's you guys who are "nibbling round the edges".

I have dedicated thousands of hours to in depth research of every detail I can find about the testimony and locations of witnesses, and the imagery of that day during the first ~40 minutes.
...

Then where did the plane go? If it had overshot it would have been seen. Many thousands were watching from all directions.

Vanished into thin air?

 

[Steve]

Then where did the plane go? If it had overshot it would have been seen. Many thousands were watching from all directions.

Vanished into thin air?

Seems to be a lot missing from the narrative, doesn't there