Another interesting video presentation arguing for...

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

...video fakery on 9-11 (no planes)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=DopaHxL8zu0

[LARED]

1. For what is worth the grainy videos of big foot

are more compelling than that "interesting video presentation"

To keep it interesting what exactly do you find interesting? Is it the grainy hard to see images that allow ones imagination to run wild? Something else?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

2. Well, if you don't find it interesting then I'm sure it must not be...

...My bad. Maybe you'll like this one better -- it shows how 9-11 was solved only 42 seconds after that second plane hit tower 2. Case closed, we can all go home now:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0-eP3pJ4ANw

I hope this one wasn't too grainy for you.

[LARED]

3. Frogs , Toads???????

The truther movement is getting weirder everyday.

[SDuderstadt]

4. This "no plane" theory crap is embarrassing...

of course, we should remember it's from a guy who claimed a tent was actually a "crate". No wonder DU relegates this junk down here. So much for the 9/11 CT crowd being taken seriously. Maybe you should ask DU why you're not allowed in GD.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

6. Is this your rebuttal fo the video in the OP?

...Seems a little weak.

[ShaneGR]

5. The conspiracy includes everyone holding cameras on the ground too

Every single person filming the WTC, the helicopter shots, the top of the building shots, the ground shots, ALL of them were in on it. Also, the people they say were on those planes, they didn't really exist. They were made up, and their families never knew them, the families were in on it too btw.

Basically teams of people worked for weeks nonstop to plant explosives in both towers on those floors, a team of people worked for weeks leading up to the attack to digitally fake every single camera angle for MSM coverage, and another team worked to create fake identities to make sure there were passengers on those planes. And all those calls from flight 93, faked too, that plane didn't exist either, they just dropped on empty plane via cargo jet out in Pennsylvania.

God my head is spinning just writing that

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

7. I notice you're careful not to address the OP...

...Any reason for that? Did you even bother to view the video?

[burnage]

8. this vid is not exactly new is it?

just one of many attempts to fool the gullible by a well known liar and fraud.

see here....

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=13099

[ShaneGR]

9. Actually I did, its a load of garbage and I'm dumber for having watched it....

My IQ dropped by 5 pts halfway through.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

11. You didn't address the video at all...

...I'd ask you to take another look but you don't sound like a guy that can spare anymore IQ points.

Here, this should make you feel better:

[Sweet Pea]

10. Arguing for?

Arguing for *what* exactly? The first place award in the Make Me Look Foolish awards?

I just love these people who say things like "inescapable evidence" and "categorically proves" and such.

Where do they get their idea of what an airliner crashing into a skyscraper "should" look like? Do they have experience of what it *should* look like? is that where their "inescapable" and "categorical" expertise comes from? 100 tons of 767 with 10,000 gallons of fuel flies, at 750 feet per second, into a lattice-work of 3/8" steel spandrels with 14" box beams (at 3/8" steel thickness as well), thence into a complex structural matrix of ducts and elevators and stairwells and ventilation shafts and other elements of a modern high rise and they raise *questions* about a puff of smoke coming out of the building from a place away from the impact point.

Lawdy Be! That damndable gub'mint musta done this! That thar is inescapable evidence! It categorically proves this dad-gum gub'mint is behind this!!!!

Tell you Troofers what. Model the dynamics of the aforementioned event. Make suer you validate your simulation, you verify that it meets all the criteria for representation and have it accredited by a competent authority. Give "inescapable" and "categorical" some scientific backbone - not just "well it doesn't LOOK like what *I* think a 767 impact should look like!.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

12. Yet another work of puzzling incoherence...

...from our good friend Sweat Pea.

[Sweet Pea]

13. What do you not understand?

Let me know and I'll use shorter words and perhaps draw pictures to help you out.