Merged Truthers fake another WTC7 video

[sheeplesnshills]

You see the problem is...they write so many times over and over again...that "truthers" are dumb, they are delusional, they really start to believe it. I mean they really do.

Nope, I like most people, knew twoofers were nutty and dumb long before I ever wrote it down.

"It didn't even enter their mind (at least from what they wrote) that you weren't being serious."

Nope again, most of us know Bill is just trolling.

" Which is why someone like me is able to come in and see it right away. "

like you see invisible missiles? LOL if the OP had not made it clear it was a spoof you would be slavering all over this video!

"There 100% percent convinced that a truther never has anything of relevance to say."

Well I don't rule out the possibility but not happened yet in the 3 years or so I've been debunking.

" A perfect example is Frank Greening. When he was 100% behind the official story he was a genies."

He was a Genie?....like with a Lamp? LOL Please find a post where a debunker said he was a Genius............we'll wait.

" Now at best they will say he is "ok" Like Greening become a different person and less smart over a matter of a couple of years.

Sadly it happens. Early onset Alzheimer and mental illness all start sometime.
Past performance is not always a measure of current ability/sanity.

 

[IdiotWhacker]

I saw the ufo it was aliens that blew it up also why, do I get the feeling that, some how I've watched a movie that wrapped around the same premise as 911 truth claim. I believe it was die hard.

 

[Craig4]

Do you think for one second that this will not get around ?

It will get around to a lunatic fringe of no influence or real importance. They'll wave their hands, scream about a cover-up and an inside job. People seeing this display will very correctly think "what a bunch of nut jobs" and move on.

 

[Craig4]

You see the problem is...they write so many times over and over again...that "truthers" are dumb, they are delusional, they really start to believe it. I mean they really do. It didn't even enter their mind (at least from what they wrote) that you weren't being serious. Which is why someone like me is able to come in and see it right away. There 100% percent convinced that a truther never has anything of relevance to say. A perfect example is Frank Greening. When he was 100% behind the official story he was a genies. Now at best they will say he is "ok" Like Greening become a different person and less smart over a matter of a couple of years.

Find the missile yet?

 

[jaydeehess]

While I'm pretty sure Bill was being sarcastic throughout this thread (ie like it's absurd to label all "truthers" because of this because the video is so obviously fake and not meant to be taken seriously) This does raise an interesting question, I could see it now, they admit WTC 7 was demolition, make up some bs as to why it was done, and people here would be saying that an alternative theory is not correct. Really ask yourself that hypothetical question...that's how far some of you will go.

With bill I was not too sure he was serious. With you I was even less sure given the contentions you have put forth in the recent past. I honestly thought you just might believe this vid was real. Given some of the other things bill has said, I was less sure but it was within threalm of possibility that he believed it was real. He even admits to initially believing it to be so.

For me it was the lack of smoke (which billowed to the roofline on the south side of WTC 7) and the odd position of the videographer that immediatly told me that this was a fake. This was even before the CG 'explosions'.

 

[alienentity]

the video is so obviously fake and not meant to be taken seriously

I think you give your opinion far too much credence - in fact I'm getting it referred to on my channel by truthers as of today.

You cannot say whether it was made to be taken seriously.

1) It may have been an attempt to demonstrate the incredible stupidity of many truthers
2) Truthers are indeed falling for it.

More likely someone knew it would fool truthers, and that was the point.

 

[Edx]

South side or not ? Right under the Penthouse too by the look of it. You better call your audio people in folks. I will be fascinated to see their analysis. Better do it soon before this goes viral. You can well imagine that this will be shown to each and every new concerned citizen with questions. It's pretty conclusive if you don't mind my saying so. Or even if you do.....

lol, trust Bill to believe every obvious fake there is .

 

[Edx]

For about two minutes I thought it was real...

Thats about 110 seconds too long for anyone with a brain

 

[Nick Terry]

That's like shooting a decapitation victim to make sure they're dead.

nominated for pith.

 

[leftysergeant]

After all the shrieking that the twoofers have done over "squibs" as indicators of CD, they now expect someone to seriously consider this to show CD? Huh? Where are the ejected puffs of dust or smoke? Why, from some distance away, do we hear the explosions as they occur?

Even if it was just thermite, there should be smoke.

A LOT of smoke. White smoke that almost glows.

Some little punk in Twooferland must think we are all as stupid as he is.

 

[tmd2_1]

With bill I was not too sure he was serious. With you I was even less sure given the contentions you have put forth in the recent past. I honestly thought you just might believe this vid was real. Given some of the other things bill has said, I was less sure but it was within threalm of possibility that he believed it was real. He even admits to initially believing it to be so.

For me it was the lack of smoke (which billowed to the roofline on the south side of WTC 7) and the odd position of the videographer that immediatly told me that this was a fake. This was even before the CG 'explosions'.

My contentions hungh? Let's talk about the missile shall we. I took something that is admittedly on the fringe of the truth movement. No one gave a plausible explanation. All you and others kept doing was whining that it was after impact. All you had to back it up was one video, but it was HD. You can be sure that if a Non HD movie showed something you wanted it wouldn't have mattered. Anyway one movie that wasn't zoomed in, I showed video after video, including a good quality one made by femr2, of a pre-impact flash. I showed a video, of something that looks like it is traveling along the side of the A/C and than impacts the building before hand. All of which is denied of course. I showed video of what looks it could a firing point from the back of the A/C. All of this, and you (collectively) show one little video, and that's the be all and end all. Unbelievably really. As I said in another thread you're not doing your debunking cause the slightest bit of good, any somewhat neutral person would be laughing at that thread. Not because they think it's a missile necessarily, but because of the "debunking" attempts. Just throw out anything and everything, show one video and that's good enough. Now back to that being on the fringe of the truth movement...it is no doubt. But that couldn't even be explained and the attempts were laughable, think about the major points of CTs? If there is no missile it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to me, my feelings wouldn't change a bit. As I stated in that thread, I did have an ulterior motive for making that thread, which I just explained.

 

[Myriad]

"I was just testing you to see if you'd believe me when I made **** up, like a true skeptic should. And you FAILED!"

That argument just gets more impressive with each passing year.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Orphia Nay]

Plenty of reasons to see this is a hoax.

Also, the "flashes" are square / straight edged, compared to the blurriness of the rest of the images.

ETA: And the "flashes" are not symmetrical or numerous like they would be in a CD.

 

[uke2se]

"I was just testing you to see if you'd believe me when I made **** up, like a true skeptic should. And you FAILED!"

That argument just gets more impressive with each passing year.

Respectfully,
Myriad

It's almost as he actually expects us to believe him.

 

[uke2se]

My contentions hungh? Let's talk about the missile shall we. I took something that is admittedly on the fringe of the truth movement. No one gave a plausible explanation. All you and others kept doing was whining that it was after impact. All you had to back it up was one video, but it was HD. You can be sure that if a Non HD movie showed something you wanted it wouldn't have mattered. Anyway one movie that wasn't zoomed in, I showed video after video, including a good quality one made by femr2, of a pre-impact flash. I showed a video, of something that looks like it is traveling along the side of the A/C and than impacts the building before hand. All of which is denied of course. I showed video of what looks it could a firing point from the back of the A/C. All of this, and you (collectively) show one little video, and that's the be all and end all. Unbelievably really. As I said in another thread you're not doing your debunking cause the slightest bit of good, any somewhat neutral person would be laughing at that thread. Not because they think it's a missile necessarily, but because of the "debunking" attempts. Just throw out anything and everything, show one video and that's good enough. Now back to that being on the fringe of the truth movement...it is no doubt. But that couldn't even be explained and the attempts were laughable, think about the major points of CTs? If there is no missile it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to me, my feelings wouldn't change a bit. As I stated in that thread, I did have an ulterior motive for making that thread, which I just explained.

"I posted something I knew that you wouldn't believe, and you didn't believe it, but you didn't provide an explanation that I would accept to why you didn't believe it so you lose and I win."

That about sums it up?

 

[tmd2_1]

"I posted something I knew that you wouldn't believe, and you didn't believe it, but you didn't provide an explanation that I would accept to why you didn't believe it so you lose and I win."

That about sums it up?

Should be written more like this.
I posted something I knew that you wouldn't explain, and you didn't explain it, in fact you didn't provide an explanation that was even plausible so you lose and I win."

That's about it.

 

[uke2se]

Should be written more like this.
I posted something I knew that you wouldn't explain, and you didn't explain it, in fact you didn't provide an explanation that was even plausible so you lose and I win."

That's about it.

But it was explained. It just wasn't explained to your unstated and, no doubt, unreachable expectations. I read that particular thread. A rational person would conceed that it was thouroughly explained.

 

[Orphia Nay]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBQ4VkNN5bQ

Even Judy Wood is saying it's a hoax!

If only to pimp her "dustification" theory.

 

[bill smith]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBQ4VkNN5bQ

Even Judy Wood is saying it's a hoax!

If only to pimp her "dustification" theory.

Interesting video Orphia. I notice that Dr.Judy mentions that the masses of thick smoke pouring all day from the south side of WTC7 may have actually been a large part of the mass of the building somehow being released and floating away in the smoke.

Personally I would need more convincing of that. But I wanted to ask you..how do you explain the said masses of thick smoke pouring from the South side of WTC7 all day long ? The smoke was pretty uniform in thickness for most of that time. Yet NIST say that an office fire only burns for about 20 minutes in any given location and then moves on to where there is more combustable material to be found. Surely after four or five hours all the combustable material is used up and the smoke gradually thins away to nothing. But WTC7 at the moment of it's destruction was producing more smoke than ever, and only from the south side despite there not being a single flame left to see anywhere in the building.

The attached video runs from before eleven in the morning to after the collapse of WTC7 at 5:20 in the afternoon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=BXvsugiyKdY longer version

How do you explain the thick smoke for so long ?

 

[newton3376]

Interesting video Orphia. I notice that Dr.Judy mentions that the masses of thick smoke pouring all day from the south side of WTC7 may have actually been a large part of the mass of the building somehow being released and floating away in the smoke.

"....Somehow...."

"Somehow"?

What does "somehow" mean?

Personally I would need more convincing of that. But I wanted to ask you..how do you explain the said masses of thick smoke pouring from the South side of WTC7 all day long ?

How do you explain it Bill? What could possibly cause thick black smoke?

The smoke was pretty uniform in thickness for most of that time.

It was? What does "uniform in thickness" mean Bill? How "uniform" was it Bill? What was your baseline for "uniform thickness of smoke" that you used for comparison?

Yet NIST say that an office fire only burns for about 20 minutes in any given location and then moves on to where there is more combustable material to be found.

"NIST says"? So it was NIST that came up with the "20 minutes" for a typical office fire? What does the "20 minutes" represent Bill? Do you understand what the "20 minutes" argument really means as far as office fires are concerned?

Surely after four or five hours all the combustable material is used up and the smoke gradually thins away to nothing.

"Surely"? How do you know this Bill? What measurements or calculations did you use to determine that "surely" after four or five hours all the combustable material would be used up?

So is it four or five hours Bill? Which is it?

But WTC7 at the moment of it's destruction was producing more smoke than ever, and only from the south side despite there not being a single flame left to see anywhere in the building.

"More smoke than ever"? How did you determine this Bill? How did you measure the volume of smoke and determite that the largest volume was right before the collapse?

"Not a single flame"? So all of the fires were out in WTC7 Bill? How do you know this? Is this confirmed by photographic evidence or eyewitness testimony?

Bill?

How do you explain the thick smoke for so long ?

How do you explain it, Bill? How does it fit into your overall truther fantasy Bill?


Bill? Are you there?