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

No-planers: I challenge you to explain how all the photos and videos were "faked"....how a plane was added, just the right size, the right angle, the right focus, the right direction of light source and the right focus to all those videos and photos WITHOUT the owners of those videos and photos exposing their property had been altered.

AND THEN EXPLAIN how we on the ground saw the same very thing.

 

You didnt see anything on the ground except your tv set. LOL

lets see your video of what you saw, no video you saw nothing simple as that.


[video=youtube;Rml2TL5N8ds]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rml2TL5N8ds&feature=yo utu.be[/video]

 

Can't answer it, huh? Not surprised.

Oh, and for a quick $1000, tell me where I claimed to have taken a video. I bet you can't.

 

http://acebaker.blogspot.com/2008/08/100000-wnyw-chopper-5-challenge.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNXmgF2yAEc

Also, be advised that since you have as yet accepted
the physics of why the alleged airliner strike to the south
tower is obviously fake, you are not ready for the evidence
of HOW it was done, you are still struggling with WHAT was done.

 

for a quick 100,000 bucks tell me ANY unedited original video of a plane impacting wtc 2 exists.

millions of video cams and no one has an unhacked video, how can that be?

Oh you? because no one believes you. Got a video so we know you are telling the truth?

 

Several have been given to "ace" and he reneged. He's a liar and a coward.

 

Define "unkacked".

your question is nonsense. You can't prove a negative. You ask it becuase, you can't prove any video has been faked so your need to frame your question so you can lose.

I could care less if no one believes me. Eyewitnesses, such as myself, are living proof you don't know your ass from your elbow.

Care you take the challenge again or do you want to keep running away?

 

You are using arguments about HOW it was done to obfuscate
the WHAT was done, the video record of the alleged "FLT175"
can not possibly be real, on so many levels, the argument was
presented that in the time between the port side wing contacting
the wall and the starboard side wing contacting the wall, there was
not time for the structure of the aircraft to respond to the asymmetrical stress,
however there are high speed videos of airliner crash tests where things
happen VERY fast in response to stress to the aircraft.

The argument that the aircraft was traveling S00000 fast
is simply not on, things do not take on special properties
with speed alone, the example of a broom-straw imbedded
in a post after storm winds sent it flying at high speed is one thing
but remember, the straw had to have met the target bit straight on,
not at an angle, and also broom-straws do not have wings.

 

Show your math to prove it can't be done.

 

You are a pressupositionalist...you assume you know what happened so you try to make the evidence fit you assertions. That's not how science works. Science follows the evidence to where it leads. It stopped following you a long time ago.

Second, unless you can prove HOW it was done, you can't prove it WAS done.

You keep claiming laws of physics have to be broken...and then when asked you can't come up with those laws. Just admit it, you simply copied someone elses claims and you don't have the skill set to defend those claims.

 

Or quite possibly some people do not have the skill set to understand,
its like this, the alleged "FLT175" struck the wall at an 11 degree angle,
and had to decelerate upon impact ( the WTC wall was not made of paper )
therefore it is a very safe bet that the aircraft was under far more stress than
it was designed to handle, my figures show 28 g, the fact also of an asymmetrical
distribution of force caused by that 11 deg angle begs the question, why didn't
the wings break off?

 

Why would they? Please post the math.

Also, what is clear in the video is, the facade of the building is not offering the resistance you claim it would...which is completely validated by the visible damage left by the impact.

 

Yes, the money is missing from the bank, and unless we can prove who did it (and how), then the crime never occurred. More strange logic.

 

That's a perfect comment. Now, prove the money is missing from the bank.

 

It's empty. It wasn't yesterday when I was in there. I guess, hey, same thing with murder? In other words, the crime is only in getting caught, not the actual crime itself. That about right?

 

Non sequitur...

 

Why "non sequitur" Please explain.

 

they have to be unmodified original format yada yada.

stop giving him hacked (*)(*)(*)(*) if you want to get paid.

 

unhacked is original right out of the camera without processing of any kind. yes you can tell.

no its not nonsense, you mean you cant prove a negative, I do it all the time.

sure 175 plane clips are super easy to prove that they are all hacked, even children are posting complaining about it, its so obvious.

You seen it on tv!

 

just for my curiosity, were any of the videos posted on youtube
or for that matter made available anyplace on the web?

 

All of them.

Google is your friend.

 

any of what videos? the ones hannibal is claiming ace should have accepted?

 

oh yea, sorry about the incomplete post. I was looking to
see the videos that were rejected by Ace,
Just curious as to what may have been submitted for that reward.

 

Oh dont be silly everyone who was not within 1000 miles of the towers knows that it was swamp gas reflecting off Venus........or something like that