9/11: How they Faked the Videos

[Elagabalus]

The bigger the lie the more likely it will be believed. In your case though, this is just too darned big!

Your incredulity doesn't change the evidence that proves the videos of the planes are fake.

You didn't answer his question.

 

[beachnut]

A lie so darn big no one believes it, the fake video one

The bigger the lie the more likely it will be believed. In your case though, this is just too darned big!

Your incredulity doesn't change the evidence that proves the videos of the planes are fake.

You got two things wrong, and are projecting again.

Your lie of fake videos is too darn BIG, no one believes it.

Where is the evidence? in the bit bucket!

 

[DuvalHMFIC]

The bigger the lie the more likely it will be believed.

And yet no one is here believing your gigantic lies, go figure.

 

[yankee451]

You didn't answer his question.

There wasn't a question. Had there been, the answer would have been the same. All the "witnesses" and "deaths" and pilots" and videos and photos, and bereaved family members you want to trot out don't change the damage evidence which makes them all irrelevant.

 

[yankee451]

And yet no one is here believing your gigantic lies, go figure.

Heh, consider the audience. Skeptic is a sort of tongue in cheek term, huh?

 

[Axxman300]

There wasn't a question. Had there been, the answer would have been the same. All the "witnesses" and "deaths" and pilots" and videos and photos, and bereaved family members you want to trot out don't change the damage evidence which makes them all irrelevant.

The damage evidence is consistent and exclusive to the impact of a 767 at high speed. Your inability and or unwillingness to understand this is your mental problem.

And your theories are so ill informed that they're just silly.

 

[yankee451]

The damage evidence is consistent and exclusive to the impact of a 767 at high speed. Your inability and or unwillingness to understand this is your mental problem.

And your theories are so ill informed that they're just silly.

And yet none of you will touch the evidence that leads me to my conclusions. The truth hurts.

 

[curious cat]

And yet none of you will touch the evidence that leads me to my conclusions. The truth hurts.

Sorry for the cliche, but:

"You can lead horse to the water but you can make it drink..."

 

[yankee451]

Sorry for the cliche, but:

"You can lead horse to the water but you can make it drink..."

Some horses can't even be led to water.

 

[abaddon]

Some horses can't even be led to water.

Obviously.

As a hypothetical, a CT believed once in a mad theory and obsessed over it.

Eventually, after much hardship and grief, the CT's family staged an intervention. Part of the result of said intervention was that the said CT would no longer indulge in such fantasies. Nor engage in such activities on the internet.

Said CT, after a brief hiatus, then covertly resumed such activities even more extremely.

What would you make of such behaviour? How should said CT's nearest and dearest respond to such a breach of such an agreement?

 

[MattNelson]

My PDF has 1,150 hits this month. Was one of them you, Steve? You're name is on page 23.

Shucks, now you kinda have to look at it.

Don't forget, Ace Baker said it was impossible to fake the [LIVE] NBC Chopper4 shot... so he claimed it wasn't live.

Most importantly you should focus on the engine that easily ripped through the building and flew out the corner section where there was no steel beam on that floor (p. 61). Think. How did the engine get to where it landed, still smoking hot, after hitting the building at 50 Murray St. and shedding other parts across its trajectory?

The only possible answer is that a 767 hit the WTC, just like people saw and heard ...and afterward smelled.

Finally, consider that at least 73 of the passengers on the two planes were identified by DNA from recovered remains (p. 5)... not counting 4 of the terrorists identified by DNA (p.8). Your "planted" and "fake" responses come too easily. Your best evidence seems to be bent metal in a chaotic crash. Start over and consider planes. Holmgren and Baker were musicians. Maybe listen to their music.

 

[TJM]

The bigger the lie the more likely it will be believed. In your case though, this is just too darned big!

Your incredulity doesn't change the evidence that proves the videos of the planes are fake.

And that's a handwave.

There wasn't a question. Had there been, the answer would have been the same. All the "witnesses" and "deaths" and pilots" and videos and photos, and bereaved family members you want to trot out don't change the damage evidence which makes them all irrelevant.

Wasn't a question? Everything and everyone on that list raises literally hundreds of questions, all of which fly directly in the face of no-planer lunacy.

Some horses can't even be led to water.

Given your track record, It wouldn't be surprising when the horse turns out to be an aardvark.

 

[BStrong]

And yet none of you will touch the evidence that leads me to my conclusions. The truth hurts.

I've had multiple concussiuons through the years but even that doesn't make your fantasy construct any more believable.

 

[bknight]

My PDF has 1,150 hits this month. Was one of them you, Steve? You're name is on page 23.

Shucks, now you kinda have to look at it.

Don't forget, Ace Baker said it was impossible to fake the [LIVE] NBC Chopper4 shot... so he claimed it wasn't live.

Most importantly you should focus on the engine that easily ripped through the building and flew out the corner section where there was no steel beam on that floor (p. 61). Think. How did the engine get to where it landed, still smoking hot, after hitting the building at 50 Murray St. and shedding other parts across its trajectory?

The only possible answer is that a 767 hit the WTC, just like people saw and heard ...and afterward smelled.

Finally, consider that at least 73 of the passengers on the two planes were identified by DNA from recovered remains (p. 5)... not counting 4 of the terrorists identified by DNA (p.8). Your "planted" and "fake" responses come too easily. Your best evidence seems to be bent metal in a chaotic crash. Start over and consider planes. Holmgren and Baker were musicians. Maybe listen to their music.

Nice bit of evidences that would mean something to anyone with half a brain.

 

[Robin]

I'm not sure. They'll look anywhere but at the lightly damaged cladding and the sharply bent steel columns, which by themselves prove the videos of the planes are fraudulent.

You would need an actual argument for that, not just some pictures with arrows drawn all over it.

 

[Axxman300]

And yet none of you will touch the evidence that leads me to my conclusions. The truth hurts.

You have no evidence.

Name the people involved in making the fake videos.

Name the people who put the fake videos on the air.

Name the people in charge of suppressing the truth.

You're a hick who's never been to Manhattan and then your intellectual capacity declines from there.

 

[bruto]

There seems a strange paradox here.

According to Yankee, all the news videos, still pictures, eyewitness accounts, amateur videos, and expert analyses, are clever and complicated fakes. An enormous conspiracy of fakery has occurred right under our very noses. Our faith in everything ought to be shaken.

And yet, his evidence is a scant few pictures, including, if I'm not mistaken, some from the same sources condemned as unreliable, and the only reason we have to believe that they are not doctored is.....faith?

 

[TJM]

^
Bingo.

 

[Blue Mountain]

Hey Yankee451, I notice you've completely ignored (twice!) my question about the missing aircraft and the people aboard them. There is the fact that four aircraft and 236 people suddenly went missing on September 11, 2001. There's a lot of evidence to show two of these aircraft were crashed into the World Trade Center in New York. If these aircraft were not involved with the attack, what is your explanation for what happened to them and the people who were aboard?

The story of the planes comes from the most likely suspects.

If you’re new to 9/11 research you’re probably thinking, “What about the Planes? What about the witnesses? What about the passengers and the pilots? What about the hijackers?” The questions pile up quickly but an astute observer would deduce that if the videos of the plane impacts aren’t legitimate, then that makes moot the question of passengers, pilots, hijackers and witnesses. It also means the media are involved. If missiles were used then that means the military is involved and if that’s true then the government must have been involved too. When taken together the ramifications of the evidence of missile impacts are too overwhelming and outrageous for many people to even consider as a possibility, so they reject it sight unseen, which is of course the desired response. It is the “big lie” after all, which can summarized thus; the bigger the lie being told the more likely it is that it will be believed.

But the evidence in the impact holes doesn’t lie.

https://911crashtest.org/how-9-11-missiles-equate-to-global-slavery/

But there's a huge problem here. We have a lot of evidence two jet aircraft hit the towers (which I admit you don't accept): eyewitnesses, TV footage, DNA from the scene that matches with missing passengers, bereaved families, kids who grew up without a mother and/father, parents mourning their dead children, life insurance payouts to beneficiaries of the deceased, bits and pieces that match with the missing aircraft. If you're saying that aircraft did not impact the tower, you have to explain away all this evidence. You simply can't ignore it because it looks like to you the holes in the towers don't match up with your idea of what the holes should look like.

Only after you've satisfactorily explained what happened to the 236 missing people and the four missing aircraft can you get around to drawing up elaborate hypotheses about how the damage was done to the towers.

And don't come back to me with the line "well, those are all just media lies." 9/11 was a huge event and the media is (more accurately, are) not a monolithic entity. There were thousands, if not millions, of individual stories files by thousands of individual reporters all over the world. Is every single one of these reporters in on the scam? The idea that a shadowy organization could co-ordinate such a media misinformation campaign over twenty years without having a single whistle-blower coming forward strains credulity to the breaking point.

 

[TJM]

If you're saying that aircraft did not impact the tower, you have to explain away all this evidence. You simply can't ignore it because it looks like to you the holes in the towers don't match up with your idea of what the holes should look like.

^

And Bingo was his name-o.