Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!

The hole was at perfect ground level. Yet there was no shearing of the ground in front. What made such a hole? When engines didn't? And windows weren't broken?

Did you even know that in one of the photos of the several-ring-in, inner-ring hole (for an exit for survivors? or for the impression of a miracle nose-cone?) there was a painted note saying: punch out?

I think the perps were so sloppy that when they put their bunker-buster charge on it, they didn't even bother to remove the note to themselves.

They didn't make fake vids ahead of time.

The claim here is they had compositry of the buildings and false skylines ready, from a hub. The plane was inserted in the 17-sec. delay after the explosions -- centering the frame (easy, ready to go) and run in real time. But they got the frame-up off-centre a tiny bit. See, the frame of the timing of the explosion was dead centre



... that is, when the plane "hit" on the first "live" vid, it hit dead centre (an easy edit), but the camera had drifted a bit to the right by the completed plane entry about a second later, and they'd only left themselves 17 sec. of lead time. (There is a blip sound in all tracks for on the audio, for the studio shill talking heads to know when it was about to air.)

So anyway, with only 17 sec. it was fine time to just anchor the CGI to the pyrotechnics, but not enough time to adjust for the drift.

So the nose of the CGI plane came out the other side. In panic, someone turned the dial within human response time, on a manual edit called a "fade to black". This takes several frames to get to pure black, so it's not a glitch.

This shot was rebroadcast on every station, and when it was rebroadcast, only the top part of the shot was in frame now, and a BANNER WAS OVER THE PLANE IMPACT ALL ALONG THE BOTTOM. How stupid is that? Well, they were covering the mistake.



The fade to black was in all subsequent use of the shot, and this shot is now removed from the official record of the day on the News Archives ... which, by the way, have been re-edited from what was shown that day. There is a lot on this. You'd have to go over it all. Too much to type.

Re. inserting into "all NYC media": only the big 4 were on air with shots. All other stations were down (it was claimed it was because of the antenna on the WTC tower, but that was fine for most of the period in question). Only one NYC station was on air, a Fox affiliate.



Re. the Pentagon fake plant parts: it's a military site. The reporters were kept away (the first reporter left) and others came after. It's easy to control the impressions. And some media had to know anyway: the fake vids show that.

In Pennsylvania, it was a remote field, and there was a DRILL going on right before this happened. The people commented on it. (They were probably doing this then.)

It is certainly possible nowadays to fake a voice; and we don't have many voices actually. We have Ted Olsen claiming he got a phone call, but his story has changed several times and the FBI said no completed call was on record. Other voices were of calm flight attendants (prob. on what they thought was a drill), a report by another, of a call from an attendant ...

Finally, please note: ALL OTHER SHOTS OF THE PLANE GOING IN HAVE PROBLEMS, and the ones you might be thinking of which show clear planes were all produced the evening of, and after. All were by "amateurs" who turned out to be CGI and graphics experts, and one even claimed his own tape had been given to the FBI. One was exposed as having been feeding his tape to CNN for their "live" coverage, and then he quickly admitted it was his ... though how was CNN already getting his tape of the live event? Didn't they have their own cameras? His explanation: he worked next door.

That seems to sum up pretty much every post you have ever made here.

Good thing I had the Rev 6.5 Kazoo Grade Irony Shunts installed.

Last Edited by The Commentator on 06/03/2010 03:30 AM

600 pages ... too bad TLR isn't here to celebrate with us :(

I backed up everything I said. Fetzer knew the evidence, too. I was stating it in detail -- the parts I covered, anyway -- and I only stated emphatically things already substantial facts. In that sense any emphasis is only from surety, not that I am not calm, too, when I want to be about it.

The fact is, it's ugly stuff, and interesting. So it can be stated emphatically or in a drone. It's still factual and logical; Fetzer knows that. He has pored over the vids and the witness logic -- and plane physics of flight as much as possible (relying on Pilots 4 9/11 Truth and Lear for the latter, to discuss the Boeing capabilities and what flight simulators can and can't do, because that's their area, though P4911T don't all agree there were no planes, but they agree it's highly questionable there were) -- etc.

Clare

What does the # of pages do for you? Give you a thrill?

Most of it's just nasty posts.

Be careful there, Commentator...
I was using those and found that after about 10 posts in a row from clunk, even they got hot enough to burn you if you touched them...
Do they make anything stronger???

Debunker Talk LIVE Chat May 15 - Zetas 100% Wrong Yet Again!!
600 pages
18,000 posts
94,201 views

Seems to you b/c you don't read them to understand. What if you're wrong? Hm? What kind of citizen would you be? Just consider it. Maybe you're afraid of being wrong and think you can't be ... but if you were, what would be so bad about that?

What if there were no planes, just pyrotechnics. So? So they lied in yet another way and it's another way into the events of the day. There are other ways: politics, physics of building collapse, cover-up of evidence, etc.

Finally, if you are afraid of being teased for a "silly idea" as you are teasing me, but it's how they did it ... then you are just not brave enough to face a truth which is uncomfortable because of people like you who would laugh.

However, no planes. Not necessary. Didn't happen with planes. Not a kooky notion -- it is knowable by what's NOT in the vids and what IS in some of the key testimony and timing and clean-up and so on.

So? So what? So no planes. So why is that so hard? If you were gonna do a play, would you build the full MacBeth castle? No. Just a few scaffolds and backdrop for an impression.

Cheaper, easier, guaranteed overall impression ... if there's suspension of disbelief -- through the the tragedy of the play. You've suspended your disbelief about lies; unfortunately, they lied and you should see the Wizard behind the curtain.

The Kazoo 6.5s are state of the art at the moment, perhaps we need a super version, the Clunker 1.0 and see how that does. As hot as those 6.5s get with clunker someone could burn the bloody house down!

We need to explain these observations and put them into a coheent package -- with honesty, of their relative weight. Sometimes key witnesses (determined by their position of observation) trump 100 others with general observations.

And so on.

Some ideas are unpleasant, but if not impossible, and even maybe more desirable -- from a perp point of view -- then they may have happened.

In THIS sense have an open mind to let the evidence speak to you; not to have your mind be "so open as to fall out". There are some strange aspects pointing to no planes, and some combinations which seem extremely strong in that regard.

So ... consider it as a play for a moment. What do you REALLY need to make it happen? You don't need planes.

NOW you can look at the points and face the Citgo witnesses and April Gallop and Vid Parallax problems (and others) and no anti-oil fire extinguishing at the Pentagon (except the truck which was on fire) ... and so on.

`coheen'ency has never been your strong point clunk

You are not responsive to new evidence, which may lead to the rejection of hypotheses previously accepted, and vice versa.

You must suspend various views in order to see if something works in a way you didn't think.

You have "The Method of Tenacity". You've made up your mind and don't allow any other information to affect or alter your point of view, i.e., what you thought previous to the points I've made. You won't even look at Lear's pilot work, and the absolute proofs of parallax impossibilities, and assessing the difference in the witnesses from Citgo vs the others.

My points are empirical tests -- ones that have consequences. You have to compare different hypotheses (general embracing theory) ... and must test each hypothesis, so they can show what the hypotheses would uncover. You test the hypotheses by the full evidence.

You do not lose your brain; instead, you compare evidence and data and seek to determine which hypothesis, OF ALL THE HYPOTHESES FULLY THOUGHT THROUGH, if true, would convey the best reference to the evidence IN FULL.

You have not handled the full, relative weight of the full evidence I have raised. Nor have you worked through each hypothesis.

I didn't just "believe" this stuff. You would be wrong to think that is how I am. I looked and compared and found serious problems with the key parts of saying there were planes, and ALSO found support for the suggestion there weren't.

God bless. (Or "Nature" give you a good day.) So to speak. Whichever you prefer as a good wish. :)

Attempt at an ad hominem (actually, ad feminam -- ha ha) fallacy: a typo.

Also, ad hominem insult using a general term which is intended to bully, whether a person deserves it or not.

Finally, generalization without support: "never" been "strong point". You have not understood what I said, and separated mistakes from misunderstandings in communications -- the lattermost being particularly obviously likely in a disruptive forum format.

So <shrug>

NASA caught in new gaffe:

[link to climaterealists.com]

LOL
<shrug> has been my view of your inane little posts for quite a while now clunk

I have watched your obvious (and I now believe deliberately intentional) twisting of every post in an attempt to show your `intelligence' (while unintentionally showing us in the process the total lack of it)

Despite many people showing your (deliberate IMHO) mistakes and why you were mistaken, in the end you showed your hand a bit too much.

ALL of your posts are nothing but a deliberate attempt to garner more attention- in other words you are nothing more than an attention whore.

And so the only thing to do with you is either ignore you outright (which some do) or ignore your attempts to twist things around to suit yourself and simply use you as a form of light comic relief.

So we do...

Confirming my previous statement. You don't know anything specific about the recovery and DNA analysis of the remains of the plane passengers.

You're declaring it to be false solely because it doesn't fit your predetermined conclusion.

In a nutshell, about what we're getting here--maybe slightly more coherent in verbal form.

A vocal delivery similar in a lot of ways to Nancy Lieder, actually.

"Willful ignorance" suits you!

Could have? Once again, total conjecture. You don't know anything at all about the specifics of the collections of the remains or how such an alleged substitution would have taken place.

So you're accusing specific investigators of being part of the conspiracy without even knowing who they are, probably a lot of people, people whose names are no doubt in the public record.

Here you go, Clare. Take a look at this page and explain how this would have been faked:

[link to www.dmort.org]

Pennsylvania Morgue Site

In their first response, the DMORT DNA team, headed by Dr. Joyce deJong, worked closely with personnel from the Armed Forces DNA Identification Lab (AFDIL). Given the particulars of the crash, DNA identification played a primary role in this response. The DNA team had trained earlier in 2001 at AFDIL, and the coordinated response with AFDIL proved beneficial.

The DMORT Family Assistance Center team, who had just completed training a few weeks before September 11, had their first chance to deploy to Pennsylvania and New York. In Pennsylvania, the team was headed by Cindy Arnold. The FAC team worked out of the Seven Spring Mountain resort, the site of the family center established by United Airlines. They worked closely with United, the Red Cross, and the NTSB to collect victim information. The national travel restrictions posed some problems in obtaining records, and some families chose not to travel to the assistance center. Collecting family reference blood samples for DNA analysis was established. A DMAT nurse collected and documented the samples from family members and helped to collect direct reference samples.

Given the legal investigative aspects of the crash, a decision was made to produce written protocols for each section of the morgue operation. Under the direction of Marilyn London, each section of the morgue operation produced a written protocol explaining how the section worked. These protocols were compiled, producing a document describing the particulars of the United 93 morgue operation. These protocols will serve as a tool to describe morgue procedures in the event of legal proceedings.

Given some of the concerns involving the numbering and processing of remains at previous responses, a triage station was established. Staffed by a pathologist, an anthropologist, and a dentist, the triage team sorted through the remains, first separating personal effects from remains. Once the personal effects were transferred to the FBI, the remains were examined to ascertain their potential for identification. Potentially identifiable remains were assigned a sequential number, a file was created, and the specimen was carried through the morgue operation. Non-identifiable remains were stored in containers, weighed daily, and stored in a separate area of the refrigerated truck. The triage process helped to focus work on remains that would most likely lead to identification, eliminated unidentifiable remains from the morgue flow (also reducing unnecessary paperwork), and greatly simplified the numbering system.

The DMORT response began on September 13 and concluded on September 25. While on site, ten positive identifications were made through dental and fingerprint examinations. As of December 2001, 40 of the passengers and crew had been positively identified. Four unique DNA profiles, representing the terrorists, have also been isolated. Thus, all passengers and crew have been identified to the extent possible.

DMORT III and their colleagues from Regions IV, V, IX, and X are honored to have served the brave passengers and crew of United 93, the "flight of heroes". The support and camaraderie between the local officials, the FBI, and the DMORT teams proved invaluable to team morale. While isolated from the events in New York and Washington, the team focused intently on their work. Each team member held a deep understanding of the importance of their role in providing the highest level of care to these victims.

That certainly describes YOU, idiot TROLL.

Nobody really wants you hear, because your posts are a pathetic waste of internet bandwidth. You are a useless TROLL.

She's also conveniently ignoring the fact that there were hundreds of eyewitnesses caught in traffic right beside the Pentagon and not a single one reported any "fly-over".

Clare just sits with her fingers in her ears and doesn't hear any evidence that contradicts her ridiculous made-up story.

Clare, that describes you perfectly.

Don't worry about it. Everyone see's Clare for the shill she is. We've all now come to expect nothing more from her except blind faith in the kooks and complete ignoring of the mountains of evidence before her.

I'm staying out of the 9/11 debate. Contrary to popular opinion, I can indeed keep my trap shut on matters in which I am largely ignorant. I don't think being an ace fighter pilot in the game 'Crimson Skies' qualifies me to make judgements about aircraft or the lack thereof.

Chemtrails? Wow. So the consensus is that a chemtrail and contrail would be visually indistinguishable, and the presence of a chemtrail could only be verified with chemical analysis?

No expert there either.

But I can tell you, from a few pages back, that spacesuits were not made with lead. Now were they ever thought to require such a lining. I've handled Apollo spacesuit gloves, and yeah they were bulky and yeah they were awkward, but with practice they were quite effective.

And the astronauts had plenty of practice working in the suits before they ever left the ground.

Lead? No. Where the heck did you get that idea, Clare?

It's important to be able to discern false impressions, Clare. Here's just one of the many examples where you fell for one.



Learn to read.

Learn to think.

You too have a left brain. It's meant to be used. Use it.

Nobody said YOU were cute, Clare.

It looks like it is the only way it is going to happen. Thanks for the suggestion.