No-planers: I challenge you to explain how all the videos and photos....

Given that the alleged "FLT175" was to have struck
the south tower at an 11 deg angle, and upon striking
the tower wall, the entire airframe would have been
subjected to 28g stress, what makes you think that the
airliner should have simply penetrated the wall as was
alleged by the mainstream Propaganda Machine?

 

so you're saying soft lead can't penetrate steel?

 

and next you are going to present a video
of a .50 cal slug penetrating a piece of sheet steel
however, given the angle involved and the sheer
violence of the alleged airliner crash, why the
neat penetration of the wall? the airliner was NOT
a homogenous lead slug but a mass of small parts
that had to have been welded, bolted, riveted together
to form the whole aircraft. and what happens to a non-
homogenous object when it encounters massive stress
and in fact nonlinear, asymmetrical stress?
Can U say HOLLOW POINT PROJECTILE?

If the alleged airliner had struck the wall totally
perpendicular to the wall, that would be one thing,
however there is an angle involved and that changes
the conditions of the whole scene.

 

if all the videos were faked, who faked them?

when were they faked?

how were all these faked videos distributed?

why did all the news personnel comply?

how much were they paid?

 

still pushing your strawman.

seriously try reading for comprehension and stop making up your own (*)(*)(*)(*) and inserting it in place of what I said.

Think you can manage that?

 

the claim is that all the videos were faked.

well, now you have to support your claim with some evidence.

who faked them?

when were they faked?

how were they mass-distributed to all the major tv markets?

why did the news personnel agree to be co-conspirators?




"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" -Carl Sagan

 

You can not address the physics of what
I presented so you have to launch into the tangent
of asking how it was done and who did it and how
much were they paid ...... oh my.

Lets not put the cart before the horse,
can we address the physics of what was alleged to have
happened in the case of the airliners? specifically
"FLT77" & "FLT175" ..... however ALL of the crashes are
VERY suspicious in nature.

 

oh look, another plane crashes into an office building.

[video=youtube;NEl6t2zHtv0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEl6t2zHtv0[/video]

- - - Updated - - -

oh look, a B-25 crashed into the Empire State Building.

[video=youtube;CodLDGhTe0k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CodLDGhTe0k[/video]

 

and so these are presented as evidence of what?
given not complete destruction of the aircraft,
and not structural failure of the building in question.
what is the point?

 

"the sun cant cast a shadow when its in front of the plane" Okay. I get it. Your logic genuinely makes sense to you, right? Never mind.

 

First, you would be attempting to teach someone who has been doing it for years. Second, you have no idea about what you're posting.

If the plane, a single vector object, is being animated to melt into an object how does that get screwed up? The answer is, it doesn't...which is why your claim is bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

The alternative is to believe that a commercial airliner
could do exactly what was recorded on 9/11/2001
( that is "FLT175" ). I assert that it could not do as
was depicted in the videos, therefore, the "FLT175"
crash into the south tower is a LIE. The physics of
the whole scene being totally wrong for this bit, the
not only penetration but the total disappearance of the
alleged aircraft inside the tower, this is just a bit more
than personal "incredulity". People do not want to
even look at the possibility that the official story is wrong,
because if it is wrong, then truly there is a HUGE problem
in AMERICA right now, but then again, what makes you think
that AMERICA is not in deep do-do?

 

just like you saw the planes impact, NOT

you still are making no sense. got an example so we can see what you think your claim is and make some sense out of it.

 

another failure of debunker comprehension, no its cannot.

you should have been able to understand the context of the point made, do you require further education to aid you and bring you up to speed?

 

geezus!

from what I have seen so far its all about these people trying to sneak their strawmen into the thread.

 

strawman.

the buildings were not built like the WTC towers nor did they have large jets slam into them.

 

I guess you forgot that I've already debunked the whole premise behind Ace Baker's "key". It doesn't work. The CGI theory fails absolutely, regardless of your lack of understanding of how shadows work. Perhaps you have an alternative theory to Ace Baker's. If so, let's hear it.

 

then you would know how easy it is to tell when its an overlay. LOL



nothing like the damage a floor higher than impact and all those columns showing through the transparency!

nice of them to (*)(*)(*)(*) up and put the plane in the wrong place doncha think? HAHAHA

 

Shadows? You think its shadows huh? LMAO

what else did you 'cough' debunk?

I did a cursory review of what you want to categorize as 'cough' debunking and compared to what Ace actually said AND how he explained it and you have a nice straw house blog.

So show us what you 'think' you debunked line item by line item. This should be as much fun as the radar blog.

Oh and give us some top shelf strawmen about that transparency above first.

No surprise the debunker movement is dead.

 

I was presented with two separate examples of
aircraft slamming into buildings and the resulting
damage & fire did not destroy the building. now what?

BTW: are you a subscriber to the ROOSD theory?
or?

 

It's simple. His luma-key theory fails. I demonstrate in my video why it can't replicate what is seen in the live chopper5 footage here:

[video=youtube;fDXN4iGbJiw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDXN4iGbJiw[/video]

And, by Baker's own criteria, a luma key wouldn't work at all with the live NBC and CBS footage, clips he simply ignores:
(more info here: The Lies of Ace Baker).

[video=youtube;fwbTxQfB4Dg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwbTxQfB4Dg[/video]



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJO1Y0bCykk

 

without needing to address the practical video editing questions,
the physics of the event trump all, the fact is that an airliner
approaching the wall at an 11 deg angle and striking, would impose
huge asymmetrical forces on the airframe and cause the break-up
of it before it had a chance to penetrate as was alleged in the official
fairy tale.

 

Can you support that claim with any scientific data? Can you find even ONE credible physicists who has studied the evidence and agrees with you?
So far, ALL of the scientific research conducted over the past decade by various, independent teams of physicists and engineers says you're wrong.
See for yourself: Published Scientific Research on the Physics of the World Trade Center Airplane Impacts

 

Fine, so now we have the "scientific community" pulling rank on everybody,
"I have a PHD, therefore I outrank you and what I say goes! "
or something .....

Either I, ( along with John Lear, Dr. Reynolds, Jessy Ventura, Johnathan Cole, David Chandler, etc.... ) B complete nut cases, OR, there is a faction that just happens to have professional standing ( PHDs etc.... ) and have chosen to abuse their position by publishing crap and calling it facts.

I ask you this, if you saw an alleged "news" video of a bar
fight scene where somebody punched his opponent so hard
as to propel the other guy across the room & break down a
door on the way out, you would say that looks like low-budget
movie special effects.

So the world was shown pix of the alleged "FLT175" crash
in addition to the alleged "FLT77" crash and then the "FLT93"
crash and told that large commercial airliners had been flown
by terrorists ...... REALLY?!?!?!?!

This goes a LOT deeper than personal incredulity
this is an appeal to common sense.

The "FLT11" & "FLT175" airliners simply crashing into
the WTC wall(s) and penetrating such that the aircraft
disappeared from sight inside. no breaking off of jet
engines before penetration, no breaking off of wings,
just zoom, like in a roadrunner cartoon .....
and people are buying this stuff..... oh well .....

 

LOL! Those are scientific publications. They contain experimental data using mathetmatical and computer simulations. They were published in various peer-reviewed journals (including international journals). You say it's "crap". Based on what? Have ALL of those researchers and ALL of those journals engaged in fraudulent research in order to collude with the American government in covering up a mass-murder false-flag operation? And if it's so obviously false, then why hasn't there been ANY attempt by any credible scientists to refute it?

I'll ask again--can you find ONE credible physicist, in the entire world, who has studied the evidence and agrees with your position? The world is full of competent physicists and engineers. Not ONE will step up and call foul? Even truther physicists Steven Jones and Greg Jenkins say you're wrong. Why is that?