A few debunking links

Hello,

As I was going through 9/11waij's 5 minute video I figured I would send out the links I use to generally debunk crap like this, and it pretty much all belongs to one of the best debunkers ever. He used to post under the tag "gravy" at JREF, until he lost interest. This link to his page provides most of the information that's relative. Some of the links may be out of date, and if they are feel free to let me know and I'll get a working link.

I also use the screw loose change blog, which is fairly good at sourcing information. They get a little insulting to truthers from time to time, but overall it's fun to read.

This one is pretty specific to AE911 truth and what a joke they are.

 

Here is a few of my favorites.

When people start spouting bull(*)(*)(*)(*) about the towers being designed to withstand multiple airline hits and that the towers couldn't have collapsed because an r'**** architect named Richard Gage was playing with some boxes and couldn't figure it out, I like to point them to the guy who designed the towers and was one of the lead structural engineers; Leslie Robertson. Here is a link to an article that discusses it all.

When people start pretending they are experts at controlled demolition, I like to point them to a man who really IS an expert on controlled demolition and his evidence it could not have been a controlled demolition. Truthers hate this paper because they can't even begin to refute it. Here is the paper.

Then there are always the dip(*)(*)(*)(*)s who think Harrit and Jones found something in the dust. Here is the scientific paper that shows exactly what the dust was. The guy that did the study had no dog in the fight. He reported what he found based on the Harrit paper to validate the two papers were looking at the same thing.

 

There's some very clear proof of an inside job that I've never seen debunked. I've seen people lamely try to obfuscate it and then consider it debunked but I've never seen it actually debunked.

The nose of the craft that hit the Pentagon was not the nose of a 757.
http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

The craft in this picture is too short to be a 757.
http://0911.voila.net/index4.htm

A 757 would look like this.
http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/pentagon/pentacamscam.jpg

If there's something in those links that debunks this, could you post it?

 

I know it's overkill, but here you go. Go ahead and hand waive it away but that debunks everything in those links and then some. It has eyewitnesses, flight paths using RADAR, and so much more.

 

This video in your link is one of the lamest of all attempts to obfuscate the proof that the craft that hit the Pentagon wasn't a 757.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f6t4dMtc00

There's no shadow under where they say the plane is.

They say the nose on the right in this picture...
http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

... is smoke even though it looks metalic and has the shape of a fighter type aircraft nose.

There's some real smoke in this picture.
http://0911.voila.net/index3.htm

It looks like smoke.

Tell us why the "Smoke" in one picture looks metalic and the smoke in the other picture looks like smoke. Also, explain why there is no shadow under where the plane is said to be in your video.

 

http://911debunkers.blogspot.ca/

http://ehpg.wordpress.com/israel-did-911/

[video=youtube;UFx1WaK54Vo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFx1WaK54Vo&feature=watch-vrec[/video]

http://archive.org/details/Dr-David-Ray-Griffin-Debunking-the-911-Debunkers-Vancouver-BC-May16-2007

http://rense.com/general62/deun.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/220507controlleddemolition.htm

 

An anti-semite and an argument from incredulity. The video is grainy at best, and there shouldn't be a noticeable shadow. How come you didn't tackle the rest of the evidence? Hundreds of witnesses, pictures of pieces of the plane, the identified body parts of the people on the plane? Your case hinges on a shadow, and a grainy picture? Seriously?

And then the anti-semite. What else is there to say? Good team guys, good team.

 

Wrong. There should be a very noticeable shadow as the shadow of the Pentagon is very noticeable.

Witnesses can be planted. Plane parts can be planted before and after a crash.

Here's a witness list.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=10632

In an operation as big as this one there would be a lot of planted witnesses but also a few real ones so this fits the inside job scenario.

The light poles can be explained.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9632

Here's a witness that says there was no plane.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88JQL4esHFg

Here's a guy who says he saw the 757 flying away after the explosion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKbT9r-6IPQ

If there's anyone who doesn't have time to watch all eight parts of the above video, you can read this short summary.
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2170


The crash site is not consistent with a 757's having crashed there.
http://physics911.net/missingwings/
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesMeyer3March2006.html


There's a lot more.
http://physics911.net/georgenelson/
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft — and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling.
----------------------------------------------------------------

http://killtown.blogspot.com.es/2006/06/why-they-didnt-use-757-to-hit-pentagon.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCHN-1Yk5LI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gxorz4jWDMY

http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_15.htm
http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_16.htm

Start watching this at the 29:00 time mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XRMrMdn0NQ

http://letsrollforums.com/barbara-olson-9-11-t20525.html?t=20525&highlight=barbara+olsen

You're insisting that a shadow wouldn't be noticeable is pretty lame. The fact that there's not shadow pretty much shoots down your video and your posting that lame video pretty much shows that you don't even believe your own arguements.

 

All bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claims, from bull(*)(*)(*)(*) truther sites. I also like how you say, "eyewitnesses can be planted", then the first thing you post is a witness list, one done by pilots for 9-11 truth. The biggest group of lying dumb (*)(*)(*)(*)s in America. Pass. Oh, and while we're on it, "eyewitnesses can be planted", but you go on to show videos of eyewitness, and then quote people that weren't even there.

I hand wave away all that (*)(*)(*)(*) you just posted. Sorry "eyewitnesses can be planted" and video can be edited.

 

The fact that you think the lack of a shadow, in one (*)(*)(*)(*)ty, grainy, low resolution video gives you the ability to disregard DNA, RADAR, eyewitnesses, and the actual plane parts shows exactly how stupid you really are. There's no way to phrase it. The fact that you think the lack of that one shadow in that one video gives you the right to (*)(*)(*)(*) all over the graves of the innocent people that died that day, defend terrorists, and (*)(*)(*)(*) on this country disgusts me on every level.

You, sir, are a sick person.

 

Can you cite a rational source for this? I don't buy it, and there should be someone in the professional field that should back it up.

 

Start watching this at the 44:00 time mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5wkyEDIxTk

 

Speculation without evidence.

 

According to the opinion of some lameassed truther. How is that evidence of anything? You have yet to present evidence it was anything other than a 757.

Again, this is the opinion of truthers who would rather lie their asses off than anything else. Are you some kind of expert on exactly how big the object should be through a fish eye lens when there isn't even enough resolution to accurately measure length? No. You're not. Nor does your opinion constitute evidence of anything other than your massive ego.

See above. Retards pretending the video camera should have shown a perfectly in focus and perfectly symmetrical plane from a fisheye lens to a security camera with limited resolution should be laughed at repeatedly and with much vigor. Maybe then they will realize just how retarded their position is. I doubt it though. The emperor's ego would never let him believe someone has made a complete fool of him.

One doesn't even need the links. All one needs to do is realize the source and the source's ego and realize the evidence is not evidence, but retarded opinion that can't stand up to even casual observation, much less the conflicting real evidence that proves the opinions are bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Do you also need an expert to tell you that there would be a shadow on the ground if there were a plane where one is said to be in this video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f6t4dMtc00


...or why the supposed smoke looks metalic in this picture...
http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

...but like smoke in this picture?
http://0911.voila.net/index3.htm

Tell us why the "Smoke" in one picture looks like shiny metal and like smoke in the other picture.

 

Dismiss, not an expert. Argument from incredulity.

 

Do you need an adult to tell you you're not going to see the shadow of ANY object that is several hundred yards away when the video camera is only a few feet off the ground? Seriously. It doesn't take a genius to understand the shadow wouldn't be visible since the shadow on the ground would be on the same plane as the viewing angle of the camera.

 

There were 86 surveillance cameras surrounding the Pentagon.

There were anti-aircraft guns protecting the Pentagon. There are Air Defense bases close by.

The recently reinforced side of the Pentagon was hit. That was the side opposite where Rumsfeld was. It was the side where the finance records were stored that would have contained accounting material for the trillion dollars or so that went missing from the military budget that Rumsfeld announced of a say or so before the attacks.

A General ordered a fighter jet up to survey the damage and report back on what he saw. The pilot said he so no signs of a crash.

Numerous pilots have testified that only a very experienced pilot would have been able to have flown the maneuver that the very inexperienced terrorist was supposed to have preformed. Some pilots say that it is aerodynamically impossible to fly a 757 that low to the ground at the speeds which were alleged.

And isn't it a happy coincidence that the one film which was released showing the attack, (after much legal wrangling) revealed only a very blurry image which looks more like a rocket than a passenger jet.

The official excuse: The plane struck in between frames. Yea right.

A former intelligence officer whose job it was for years to examine surveillance photos during the cold war with Russia has stated that the hole was too small for a 757. This statement is corroborated by the fact that in the attack on the WTCs the holes produced by the wings were clearly visible. There were no such holes in the Pentagon walls. Also the engines of of the planes are made of material which would make them virtually indestructible so that they certainly would leave an impression.

One of the few people who were working on the side of the building which was struck (presumably expendable) testified that she saw no plane wreckage.



Finally, one would think that if the government authorities wanted to remove all doubt, that they would simply have produced the photos. The fact that they didn't reminds me that Bin Laden's body was supposed to have been dumped into the sea. By the number of such incidents like these, one might get the impression that someone in the government wanted create conspiracy theories rather than dispel them.

Shouldn't the government do all it could to gain the confidence of the public? Instead, their actions all the way from LYING that no one could have imagined such an attack, to buying off victim's families, to destroying crime scene evidence, to refusing to investigate until great pressure was brought to bear and then obstructing the investigation, to going to war without a Congressional declaration, to violating the Constitution, to adopting the Israeli practice of torturing confessions out of prisoners (against Geneva convention).

All of this governmental thumbing of the nose towards the wishes of the people reminds me of the impudence which has been displayed by the Federal Reserve toward Congressional members who have sought an accounting of where all our tax dollars have been dispensed by this private entity.



So you have all sorts of defense protocols being ignored or broken on that day so that the most protected airspace in the world was easily penetrated. We were told that this was all due to ignorance and incompetence. Yet all the folks who were supposed to be asleep behind the wheel that day were promoted.


Do you think I am going to feign stupidity just to avoid being called stupid by an Israel Firster?

 

Incorrect. I'll bet you can't source either of these claims.

 

Complete and utter bull(*)(*)(*)(*). This is a lie you cannot substantiate. The closest to reality that this comes is that there were 86 tapes total confiscated by the FBI. The only ones that showed anything were released via FOIA years ago. More evidence of the dishonesty of truthers.

Really? Where? Google Maps has the resolution to see individual cars with ease. Modern AA guns are much larger than that. Better yet, explain why ANYONE would want to take on the criminal and civil responsibility of putting anti-aircraft ANYTHING in the flight path of a major international airport. Truthers are incapable of actual thought which is why they can make claims like there were guns or missiles protecting the Pentagon. It is such utter nonsense that it is no wonder truthers are laughed at the world over.

WOW! What are the odds! Holy crap. One in five. You don't even get those kinds of odds rolling a single die! MORE examples of the stupidity and dishonesty of truthers.

BTW, the trillions of dollars worth of invoices that did not pass GOA muster were spread out across numerous systems which is why they didn't pass GOA muster in the first place. Most of the money has already been accounted for. Didn't you get the zionist memo?

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Hanjour made a 270 degree turn in almost three minutes. I've been subjected to more radical turns flying into Midway in Chicago! Whatever pilots said it is aerodynamically impossible to fly a 757 that low and at that speed should have their licenses revoked for life. BTW, the 757 didn't fly at that speed. It crashed at that speed. What do these brilliant pilots of yours claim should happen? The plane just come to a complete and sudden stop? Seriously. Grow a brain.

So we're suppose to believe your opinion over all the people who were there and actually SAW the plane with their own eyes? No thank you. Just look at all the blatant lies you've told so far. It doesn't take much to understand your level of honesty is not what anyone would want to believe.

So you have evidence that the security cameras had a faster frame rate? Present it.

What a dumb ass! The hole was slightly larger than the well documented diameter of a 757 fuselage. It doesn't take a genius to understand that a smaller object can fit into a larger hole.

And here we see the truther inability to differentiate between relatively thin pieces of metal and a thick concrete steel reinforced facade recently upgraded to withstand bomb blasts by your own admission. Can you say DUH?

And this one person somehow negates the hundreds of other people who saw wreckage, saw the plane strike the building, and removed the bodies of flight 77 passengers from the wreckage? Not to mention all the photographic evidence showing plane parts? Wow. You truthers really are too gullible for your own good!

And this would have convinced exactly zero truthtards. They would just claim it was made up. If you don't believe me, just ask Scott about how any and all pieces of photographic evidence he doesn't like is somehow doctored.

Wrong yet again. You're batting 0.000 today! Aren't you proud? Name the defense protocols that were ignored or broken. Explain how the area around the Pentagon is the most protected airspace when there is a major international airport less than a mile from the Pentagon.

Your claims are bull(*)(*)(*)(*). The only redeeming characteristic of your claims is that they are ALL bull(*)(*)(*)(*) which makes recognizing the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) very, VERY easy.

Who says you are feigning stupidity? That person should be scolded for lying! I think it is demonstrable from your post that there is absolutely no feigning of stupidity on your part.

 

You obviously have ignored the links I've provided. This is understandable since your mission here is to cast more doubt on the people asking questions than on the incredulous stories they have been told.

But have it your way. The surveillance at the 7-11 across the street was better than what the Pentagon had. Or why else would their agents run around confiscating the tapes?

Don't tell me. It would be because for everyone to see with their own eyes the plane striking the Pentagon as we have been told would jeopardize national security. They want us to just take them at their word. At the same time, they must think that for some reason, "we can't handle the truth".

 

More bull(*)(*)(*)(*) from you. Eleven years and not one person has stepped forward to set the record straight. I love how truthtards pretend there isn't a single honest person out there that would tell the truth of what they saw. Your opinions of what others would do are retarded to the extreme and show an almost unfathomable ignorance of the real world. Amazing. Just amazing.

 

Lie

Lie

A trillion dollars didn't go missing, blatant lie, no source, and I highly doubt the terrorists gave a (*)(*)(*)(*) what side of the pentagon Rumsfeld was on. Whole statement is crap.

Lie, non sourced truther claptrap

Lies, incredulity, and you are probably either cherry picking the pilots quotes, or going of of Pilots for 9/11 truth. They are actually known as being the dumbest people available in regards to 9/11.

It doesn't look like a rocket, speaking from incredulity. Just because you have no formal education or ability to decipher a picture doesn't mean that it looks like a rocket. It means your brain can't figure out what you're looking at. The fact it's a fisheye lens, lower to the ground, and designed to look at the slow moving cars that are directly in front of it, appears to be something your mind just can't grasp. I know you don't get it, but the camera is 100% successful at it's purpose.

Any source or something to show you aren't speaking from your exit hole?

Really? The wings are indestructible? Care to source that anti-semite? Also, you said earlier "The reinforced side was hit." Were you referring to the fact that the side of the pentagon was reinforced with concrete? The Trade Centers were glass and steel. Completely different, you're getting good at this.

Could she maybe be referring to the fact that the plane had been annihilated? Maybe she was referring to, in comparison to the whole product? Not to mention, you guys just said eyewitnesses can be planted and can't be trusted. Which is it? Can they are can't they?

Are you familiar with PENTTBOM? They did release every camera, had you taken a few seconds to look through the information posted you would see that they got released. You can see all the camera angles for your self and realize that THEY DIDN'T SHOW (*)(*)(*)(*). Why, you are sure to ask? Because other buildings don't buy security cameras to monitor other (*)(*)(*)(*)ing buildings. They use them to monitor their own, so the other cameras didn't pick anything up.

Closest thing you've said to the truth this whole time, I do believe people didn't do their jobs. I feel America was caught with our pants down, completely. That's a long way from a conspiracy though buddy.

I don't know what the (*)(*)(*)(*) an Israel Firster is, and I absolutely don't think you're feigning.

 

Look "Patriot". The only people you may be fooling are the very gullible or uniformed.

We KNOW that controlled demolitions were used.

We KNOW that a Zionist cabal set this thing up and pulled it off.

The more you people lie, the more certain I am that you are an enemy. I mean that quite literally.

I learned about Muslim fanaticism long before I became aware of Jewish Supremacism. I consider them both anathema to this country. But the more I deal with people like yourself, the more convinced I am that YOU are by far the worst ie pose the greatest threat to the US and to white gentile males in particular as well as all of Christiandom.

So you keep it up. I need all the allies I can get. And I appreciate you helping to create them. The closer I get to the heart of Zionism, the less disagreeable the Muslims look. You are a prime example.

 

Says the snake oil salesman

No, we don't. Just because you say it doesn't mean it's true.

No, we don't. Other truthers don't even agree with you, anti-semite.

I agree with you, quite literally. You (*)(*)(*)(*) on the graves of 3,000, and I work to protect their memory. I am your enemy.

Right, so you're a racist, bias, anti-semite. Is this supposed to be building your case here? Or is showing you're an ignorant piece of (*)(*)(*)(*) a quality standard in your world? I am not a christian, dip(*)(*)(*)(*). And if you're a christian I rejoice in the fact I don't call myself one. I bet you are gentile though, I bet your boyfriend reminds you of that daily.

Nobody here agrees with you, except a french moron that can't speak properly, and other anti-semites. Let's face it, hating Jews has been around forever and you guys are still at the bottom of the food chain. You're worst than truthers, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results. Guess what you are?