9/11: How they Faked the Videos

Such a simple question too.

Do you think:

a) The steel column could be damaged somewhat without the cladding being completely severed or;
b) The steel column could not be damaged at all unless the cladding was completely severed.

It also seems too have a rather obvious answer.
 
Last edited:
yankee451 said:
I use my real name and face because I mean what I say. The only people I have a beef with already know everything there is to know about me. I don't have a problem with people who live in fear and think using a pseudonym will protect them, however naive that is, but I have no patience for ad hominem fallacies slung by people who hide behind anonymity. I wasn't asking them to "show themselves" as much as I was mocking them for slinging mud from the shadows.

The skeptics have been wrong about so many things, from which tower they're looking at, to whether the south face of the south tower is visible when looking at the north face of the north tower. They don't admit they're wrong because they don't have to. They won't have to face friends, family and co-workers for their mistakes. They can say anything they want without having to admit error. And they do. Often. Just read the thread. I suspect there would be fewer blowhards here if they proudly signed their names to their screed.
Click to expand...

Exactly the answer I expected from the smartest and most honest man in the universe. :-)
 
It's pretty clear that Steve is not going to change his beliefs. His arguments/positions are so weird and essentially unsupported by any science... he will not get any traction on this site or with the public.

Numerous vids were posted to the WTC2 strike and all show exactly the same event and smoke. It defies credulity to think they were all FX scams by the perps who according to his theory... controlled or are the USG, the media, UA, AA... witnesses and so on. Just orchestrate such a complex conspiracy is not possible... let alone come up with it.

If the objective of the perps was to start a war and blame it on radical Islamists... planting bombs would work and probably easier to smuggle in a set off than the special effects show. There would be evidence of bombs and it could be pinned on whomever.

Steve's theory is so crazy... and no one here is taking it seriously. It's a waste of time... except to see the critical thinking from members.
 
JSanderO said:
It's pretty clear that Steve is not going to change his beliefs. His arguments/positions are so weird and essentially unsupported by any science... he will not get any traction on this site or with the public.

Numerous vids were posted to the WTC2 strike and all show exactly the same event and smoke. It defies credulity to think they were all FX scams by the perps who according to his theory... controlled or are the USG, the media, UA, AA... witnesses and so on. Just orchestrate such a complex conspiracy is not possible... let alone come up with it.

If the objective of the perps was to start a war and blame it on radical Islamists... planting bombs would work and probably easier to smuggle in a set off than the special effects show. There would be evidence of bombs and it could be pinned on whomever.

Steve's theory is so crazy... and no one here is taking it seriously. It's a waste of time... except to see the critical thinking from members.
Click to expand...

You're still ignoring the evidence that proves planes didn't do it.
 
Robin said:
Such a simple question too.

Do you think:

a) The steel column could be damaged somewhat without the cladding being completely severed or;
b) The steel column could not be damaged at all unless the cladding was completely severed.

It also seems too have a rather obvious answer.
Click to expand...

The answer is, false dichotomy.
 
yankee451 said:
You're still ignoring the evidence that proves planes didn't do it.
Click to expand...

The evidence I see strongly supports that jumbos hit the towers.

You point out something which looks inconsistent to YOU. But it's not inconsistent with the disintegration that a plane crash could do. You cant throw out everything because ONE thing baffles you.
 
JSanderO said:
The evidence I see strongly supports that jumbos hit the towers.

You point out something which looks inconsistent to YOU. But it's not inconsistent with the disintegration that a plane crash could do. You cant throw out everything because ONE thing baffles you.
Click to expand...


I keep pointing out evidence that any honest investigator would conclude eliminates planes from the list of possibilities.
 
yankee451 said:
I keep pointing out evidence that any honest investigator would conclude eliminates planes from the list of possibilities.
Click to expand...

No, you don't. You point out things you cannot understand and make a crazy leap to "missiles" despites the simple fact that no missiles are capable of such precision then or now. Thus you rely on some heretofore unknown technological solution that you pull directly from your fundament. This is no different than the claims of the insane Judy Wood with her space beams.
 
JSanderO said:
The evidence I see strongly supports that jumbos hit the towers.

You point out something which looks inconsistent to YOU. But it's not inconsistent with the disintegration that a plane crash could do. You cant throw out everything because ONE thing baffles you.
Click to expand...

Well, I believe he once said he believed the Apollo landings were phony. Apollo hoax believers in general have a very similar M.O.: see something they don’t understand, declare it an “anomaly”, and pronounce the whole thing fake - with no good explanation for the evidence, and no evidence for the methods of alleged fakery, and certainly no sane explanation for how such a gigantic conspiracy makes any sense in the first place.

I’d enjoy seeing Yankee451 develop his Apollo views here, but he’s shown no inclination to do so.
 
abaddon said:
No, you don't. You point out things you cannot understand and make a crazy leap to "missiles" despites the simple fact that no missiles are capable of such precision then or now. Thus you rely on some heretofore unknown technological solution that you pull directly from your fundament. This is no different than the claims of the insane Judy Wood with her space beams.
Click to expand...

Nope, still wrong. As explained already, I started my investigation believing everything I was shown on television.

Back in the first gulf war they bragged about putting bombs and missiles through windows and down chimneys. Ten years later, do you think they ditched that technology, or do you think they refined it?
 
Last edited:
sts60 said:
Well, I believe he once said he believed the Apollo landings were phony. Apollo hoax believers in general have a very similar M.O.: see something they don’t understand, declare it an “anomaly”, and pronounce the whole thing fake - with no good explanation for the evidence, and no evidence for the methods of alleged fakery, and certainly no sane explanation for how such a gigantic conspiracy makes any sense in the first place.

I’d enjoy seeing Yankee451 develop his Apollo views here, but he’s shown no inclination to do so.
Click to expand...

Red herrings abound. Focus, focus...
 
MattNelson said:
FYI, people, there are 63 videos showing Flight 175. I've been collecting them for about 10 years.

There are more than 49 photos of the 2nd plane, too. I've recently added 3 new ones. Another was just found that hasn't been added.

Let's talk about the 2nd plane, Steve. Was it missiles cloaked in a hologram?
Click to expand...

More red herrings. I've explained my position thoroughly already. How many of those videos were shown almost-live (considering the ~17 second broadcast delay)?
 
yankee451 said:
Still no. As explained repeatedly already, not all of those were broadcast live. The ones that WERE broadcast live, or almost live actually, were from the perspective of the north face of the north tower. How do you figure the crash was shown live, when the alleged plane crashed into the south face of the south tower, which was not visible in the live footage. Do your research and, please, stop foaming at the mouth.
Click to expand...

projection and failing to realize flight 175 was on Radar at the exact time it is seen on video

the foaming at the mouth is projection, and your post are a mini Gish Gallop

Are you now saying there were aircraft and people lasing the target. Please explain how the smart missiles work. You don't do science.

Why do Radar tracks of 11 and 175 end at the WTC? Now you have the FAA and NTSB in on your demented fantasy mocking the murder of thousands. This is not foaming at the mouth, it is typing the truth, something you and trump can't do. You could be a bigger liar than the president, but you lies are limited to one subject. Do windmills cause cancer in your fantasy world like trumps? (oops, a mini gish gallop)
 
beachnut said:
projection and failing to realize flight 175 was on Radar at the exact time it is seen on video

the foaming at the mouth is projection, and your post are a mini Gish Gallop

Are you now saying there were aircraft and people lasing the target. Please explain how the smart missiles work. You don't do science.

Why do Radar tracks of 11 and 175 end at the WTC? Now you have the FAA and NTSB in on your demented fantasy mocking the murder of thousands. This is not foaming at the mouth, it is typing the truth, something you and trump can't do. You could be a bigger liar than the president, but you lies are limited to one subject. Do windmills cause cancer in your fantasy world like trumps? (oops, a mini gish gallop)
Click to expand...

They were selling us planes, but launched missiles. All radar data can be faked, as you, an alleged pilot, already know. Considering the most likely suspects are the people who provided the alleged radar data, why do you think it has merit? Why do you think radar data from the most likely suspects overrides the physical evidence that discredits it?
 
MattNelson said:
Prove the NBC Chopper4 video wasn't live. Ace Baker would be interested.
Click to expand...

Hi Matt, well met.

I never said it wasn't live. Ace Baker could't care less.

What I did say, in the op, and numerous times in this thread, and on video, and in interviews, is that the view of the live shots did not show the crash, because the perspectives of the live (almost) shots were from the north side of the north tower. They were filming the hole in the North Tower when the explosion occurred in the south side of the South Tower, therefore, the crash itself was not captured live. What was captured live was a CGI plane flying "behind" the towers, followed by an explosion from the opposite side of the tower that the networks were showing us.

Please try to log it in.

Steve De'ak
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom