Do you belive 9/11 was a inside job?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

?? You are talking about the "mini" explosion before the plane hit the building right? If that was an explosion caused by jet fuel, it would have been a hell of a lot bigger than that. And how do you explain thebottom of the plane? You can clearly see its not round like the bottom of a regular commercial airliner, by looking at the shadows and sun reflections.

racer8dan

Watch the video I linked to. It addresses all the points you've linked to thus far in that video.

:lol: Are you suggesting that a missle struck one of the two WTC towers?

Well can someone explain why larry even ADMITTED that the fire department asked him if he would like to "pull it" referring to the building, while many other news and whatnot stated that it collapsed due to fire and other damages, how did they manage to rig building 7 with explosives in under 8 hours?

guitarshr3dd3r

Is the fire department regularly involved in demolitions?

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="OBLOK"]So you are saying that the terrorists succeeded in destroying the American peoples freedom? hell i think you might be onto something, keep looking!

OBLOK

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

Not much debunking going on in that video. And what about the first tower missile strike?

racer8dan

Not much debunking going on? He shows how the filmmaker had to have purposefully lied about what he was showing the viewer, and there is not much debunking going on? He shows how this "pod" is not visible from a fifth vantage point, and there is not much debunking going on? This is not some brainwashed guy who believes the government story; this is a 9/11 Truther debunking that video you've been linking to. It's that bad.

What do you mean "first tower missile strike"?

4:10-

Opinion!? Did you even watch the video?

Where is the pod?

Furthermore, the author of the video showed the way in which images like that one with "smoke rising from the ground" could only have been purposeful deceptions on the part of the filmmaker... does that not put up at least a tiny red flag for you?

[QUOTE="guitarshr3dd3r"]

Well can someone explain why larry even ADMITTED that the fire department asked him if he would like to "pull it" referring to the building, while many other news and whatnot stated that it collapsed due to fire and other damages, how did they manage to rig building 7 with explosives in under 8 hours?

PannicAtack

I have yet to see anyone explain to me how no one would notice that their building was being set for controlled demolition.. Do people understand that rigging buildings that size takes months.. As well as the fact they have to rip the interior of the building apart in multiple places to reach key points.. Lets not forget that these demolitions have MANY MANY MANY miles of wires going thorugh it.. Please explain every one here how buildings which had thousands of people go throughe very day not notice a controlled demolition being set up? They would have to be ripping up walls on every floor, they would have been running hundreds to thousands of wires all over the place.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

Not much debunking going on in that video. And what about the first tower missile strike?

racer8dan

Not much debunking going on? He shows how the filmmaker had to have purposefully lied about what he was showing the viewer, and there is not much debunking going on? He shows how this "pod" is not visible from a fifth vantage point, and there is not much debunking going on? This is not some brainwashed guy who believes the government story; this is a 9/11 Truther debunking that video you've been linking to. It's that bad.

What do you mean "first tower missile strike"?

4:10-

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

Not much debunking going on in that video. And what about the first tower missile strike?

racer8dan

Not much debunking going on? He shows how the filmmaker had to have purposefully lied about what he was showing the viewer, and there is not much debunking going on? He shows how this "pod" is not visible from a fifth vantage point, and there is not much debunking going on? This is not some brainwashed guy who believes the government story; this is a 9/11 Truther debunking that video you've been linking to. It's that bad.

What do you mean "first tower missile strike"?

4:10-

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Not much debunking going on? He shows how the filmmaker had to have purposefully lied about what he was showing the viewer, and there is not much debunking going on? He shows how this "pod" is not visible from a fifth vantage point, and there is not much debunking going on? This is not some brainwashed guy who believes the government story; this is a 9/11 Truther debunking that video you've been linking to. It's that bad.

What do you mean "first tower missile strike"?

GabuEx

4:10-

Opinion!? Did you even watch the video?

Where is the pod?

Furthermore, the author of the video showed the way in which images like that one with "smoke rising from the ground" could only have been purposeful deceptions on the part of the filmmaker... does that not put up at least a tiny red flag for you?

No it doesn't strike a red flag, the video came live from one of the major news channels.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"] Youtubes users opinion vs his opinion, I did not find it possible for the jet engine shadow to have created that line down the center, it doesn't even make sense.

4:10-

racer8dan

Opinion!? Did you even watch the video?

Where is the pod?

Furthermore, the author of the video showed the way in which images like that one with "smoke rising from the ground" could only have been purposeful deceptions on the part of the filmmaker... does that not put up at least a tiny red flag for you?

No, I don't, the angle plane is blocking it:|

racer8dan

What?

You can see the bottom of the plane clear as day in that picture. There is no anomaly, no pod.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"] Youtubes users opinion vs his opinion, I did not find it possible for the jet engine shadow to have created that line down the center, it doesn't even make sense.

4:10-

racer8dan

Opinion!? Did you even watch the video?

Where is the pod?

Furthermore, the author of the video showed the way in which images like that one with "smoke rising from the ground" could only have been purposeful deceptions on the part of the filmmaker... does that not put up at least a tiny red flag for you?

No it doesn't strike a red flag, the video came live from one of the major news channels.

.. Wait whats wrong with live footage from a major news channel?

No it doesn't strike a red flag, the video came live from one of the major news channels.

racer8dan

The video footage of the "smoke" was of the first tower collapsing, as anyone would have known if they had seen footage ten seconds before or after the clip provided. The filmmaker said it was rising from the street before either tower had collapsed. That was a lie. It was a bald-faced lie that selectively cut the video to make it appear to depict something that was not there, as the video clearly shows.

That doesn't raise anything resembling a red flag for you?

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

No it doesn't strike a red flag, the video came live from one of the major news channels.

GabuEx

The video footage of the "smoke" was of the first tower collapsing, as anyone would have known if they had seen footage ten seconds before or after the clip provided. The filmmaker said it was rising from the street before either tower had collapsed. That was a lie. It was a bald-faced lie that selectively cut the video to make it appear to depict something that was not there, as the video clearly shows.

That doesn't raise anything resembling a red flag for you?

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

No it doesn't strike a red flag, the video came live from one of the major news channels.

GabuEx

The video footage of the "smoke" was of the first tower collapsing, as anyone would have known if they had seen footage ten seconds before or after the clip provided. The filmmaker said it was rising from the street before either tower had collapsed. That was a lie. It was a bald-faced lie that selectively cut the video to make it appear to depict something that was not there, as the video clearly shows.

That doesn't raise anything resembling a red flag for you?

Gabu your quite clearly a government agent attempting to spread propaganda to deflect the truth behind 9/11.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

No it doesn't strike a red flag, the video came live from one of the major news channels.

racer8dan

The video footage of the "smoke" was of the first tower collapsing, as anyone would have known if they had seen footage ten seconds before or after the clip provided. The filmmaker said it was rising from the street before either tower had collapsed. That was a lie. It was a bald-faced lie that selectively cut the video to make it appear to depict something that was not there, as the video clearly shows.

That doesn't raise anything resembling a red flag for you?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

No it doesn't strike a red flag, the video came live from one of the major news channels.

racer8dan

The video footage of the "smoke" was of the first tower collapsing, as anyone would have known if they had seen footage ten seconds before or after the clip provided. The filmmaker said it was rising from the street before either tower had collapsed. That was a lie. It was a bald-faced lie that selectively cut the video to make it appear to depict something that was not there, as the video clearly shows.

That doesn't raise anything resembling a red flag for you?

It is in the video I just showed. The one debunking "In Plane Sight". It is right there, taking up almost the first half of the video. The video shows the footage from "In Plane Sight", then shows the adjacent footage. You could not have possibly missed it if you had watched the video.

What do I even say to this?

Gabu your quite clearly a government agent attempting to spread propaganda to deflect the truth behind 9/11.

sSubZerOo

How did you find out? :(

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

The video footage of the "smoke" was of the first tower collapsing, as anyone would have known if they had seen footage ten seconds before or after the clip provided. The filmmaker said it was rising from the street before either tower had collapsed. That was a lie. It was a bald-faced lie that selectively cut the video to make it appear to depict something that was not there, as the video clearly shows.

That doesn't raise anything resembling a red flag for you?

GabuEx

It is in the video I just showed. The one debunking "In Plane Sight". It is right there, taking up almost the first half of the video. The video shows the footage from "In Plane Sight", then shows the adjacent footage. You could not have possibly missed it if you had watched the video.

What do I even say to this?

[QUOTE="OBLOK"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"] Yeaaah, you have nothing but bad wisecracks.PannicAtack

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="OBLOK"]Yeaaah, calling me a wisecrack and not seeing the irony in your own sentence, i wonder what they call those types of people..

OBLOK

Ok, were not on the same page here. I'm thinking of a completely different topic of my video, in which I thought you were refering to

racer8dan

I'm not specifically talking about the "pod" issue; I'm talking about the fact that this filmmaker has been shown to be wilfully dishonest in his depiction multiple times.

But even if that were not the case, show me on this footage of the plane:

...where the pod is hiding.

Is it not supposed to be strapped to the bottom? The bottom that we can clearly see is smooth and without anomaly?

wow man, I don't buy this missle-strapped airplane thing, but that picture proves nothing. It's blurry as hell, I could fit 50 missles on there that would not show up on that pic.F1_2004

The bottom of the aircraft can clearly be seen to be smooth, with no bumps on it that divert the line between the plane and the sky. The theory suggests that there was a bulky pod on the bottom of it, like one seen on military jets. You don't need a crystal clear picture to see that there is no such pod on the bottom of the airplane.

wow man, I don't buy this missle-strapped airplane thing, but that picture proves nothing. It's blurry as hell, I could fit 50 missles on there that would not show up on that pic.F1_2004

[QUOTE="F1_2004"]wow man, I don't buy this missle-strapped airplane thing, but that picture proves nothing. It's blurry as hell, I could fit 50 missles on there that would not show up on that pic.GabuEx

The bottom of the aircraft can clearly be seen to be smooth, with no bumps on it that divert the line between the plane and the sky. The theory suggests that there was a bulky pod on the bottom of it, like one seen on military jets. You don't need a crystal clear picture to see that there is no such pod on the bottom of the airplane.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="F1_2004"]wow man, I don't buy this missle-strapped airplane thing, but that picture proves nothing. It's blurry as hell, I could fit 50 missles on there that would not show up on that pic.F1_2004

The bottom of the aircraft can clearly be seen to be smooth, with no bumps on it that divert the line between the plane and the sky. The theory suggests that there was a bulky pod on the bottom of it, like one seen on military jets. You don't need a crystal clear picture to see that there is no such pod on the bottom of the airplane.

Really? I would think they'd have to be pretty big to make such a huge explosion.

You have no idea of the scale of that plane. It's huge, these pods would be tiny by comparison.F1_2004

That there on the bottom is the pod that they are alleging to have existed on the bottom of this plane.

You can clearly see in the picture that the gradient of the sunlight smoothly flows from light to dark as you go towards the underbelly of the plane. The sunlight absolutely would have detected something like that.

- tag span may not have attribut id

That's a ridiculous picture, you can't see anything?

racer8dan

Yes you can. You can see a plane with a totally normal bottom.

That's a ridiculous picture, you can't see anything?

racer8dan

I can see a plane on which the sunlight does not show anything on the underside.

That's a ridiculous picture, you can't see anything?

racer8dan

That's a ridiculous picture, you can't see anything? And as far as your video debunking mine, some random youtuber touched on about 3 out 20 topics of the plane in sight video, Hence the description: "This video thoroughly debunks "parts" of Dave Von Kleist's "911 In Plane Sight". What about the rest of it? I hardly call this debunking the video.

Update: this is the full message, gamespot errors??

And as far as your video debunking mine, some random youtuber touched on about 3 out 20 topics of the plane in sight video, Hence the description: "This video thoroughly debunks "parts" of Dave Von Kleist's "911 In Plane Sight". What about the rest of it? I hardly call this debunking the video.

racer8dan

He shows that Von Kleist is intentionally dishonest and wilfully hides evidence that would show his claims for what they are. He additionally shows, in fact, that Von Kleist knew that what he was saying was false, yet said it anyway. Does he really need to go through the entire film piece by piece after having established that fact?

That's a ridiculous picture, you can't see anything? And as far as your video debunking mine, some random youtuber touched on about 3 out 20 topics of the plane in sight video, Hence the description: "This video thoroughly debunks "parts" of Dave Von Kleist's "911 In Plane Sight". What about the rest of it? I hardly call this debunking the video.

racer8dan

Update: this is the full message, gamespot errors??

racer8dan

Nah, it's a conspiracy.

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

And as far as your video debunking mine, some random youtuber touched on about 3 out 20 topics of the plane in sight video, Hence the description: "This video thoroughly debunks "parts" of Dave Von Kleist's "911 In Plane Sight". What about the rest of it? I hardly call this debunking the video.

GabuEx

He shows that Von Kleist is intentionally dishonest and wilfully hides evidence that would show his claims for what they are. He additionally shows, in fact, that Von Kleist knew that what he was saying was false, yet said it anyway. Does he really need to go through the entire film piece by piece after having established that fact?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

And as far as your video debunking mine, some random youtuber touched on about 3 out 20 topics of the plane in sight video, Hence the description: "This video thoroughly debunks "parts" of Dave Von Kleist's "911 In Plane Sight". What about the rest of it? I hardly call this debunking the video.

racer8dan

He shows that Von Kleist is intentionally dishonest and wilfully hides evidence that would show his claims for what they are. He additionally shows, in fact, that Von Kleist knew that what he was saying was false, yet said it anyway. Does he really need to go through the entire film piece by piece after having established that fact?

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

Update: this is the full message, gamespot errors??

ThePlothole

Nah, it's a conspiracy.

uh yeah because it makes perfect sense for the US government to destroy two of their own skyscrapers and kill many of their own civillians right...

Seriously though nearly all conspiracy theories are full of **** and this is no exception.

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

He shows that Von Kleist is intentionally dishonest and wilfully hides evidence that would show his claims for what they are. He additionally shows, in fact, that Von Kleist knew that what he was saying was false, yet said it anyway. Does he really need to go through the entire film piece by piece after having established that fact?

PannicAtack

uh yeah because it makes perfect sense for the US government to destroy two of their own skyscrapers and kill many of their own civillians right...

Seriously though nearly all conspiracy theories are full of **** and this is no exception.

oldmanriver1

Also, nobody ever tossed an answer at the statement I made regarding the cameras by the way?

As the video states, one of the most secure facilities in the nation, and that crappy, low frame video is the only camera that caught the impact. Not to mention you can't even see the large plane in it, (how convenient I might add). Doesn't sound very secure to me, if that's the case, I could probably walk out on that field wielding an ak47 and no one would be any the wiser, unless of course they do have the video from those other cameras and there just not going to release them due to the evidence they hold. This alone should be enough, to at the least question the official story, no?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ys9quilme1Q&feature=related

racer8dan

Read the information presented before just throwing something random out there.

racer8dan

As the video states, one of the most secure facilities in the nation, and that crappy, low frame video is the only camera that caught the impact. Not to mention you can't even see the large plane in it, (how convenient I might add). Doesn't sound very secure to me, if that's the case, I could probably walk out on that field wielding an ak47 and no one would be any the wiser, unless of course they do have the video from those other cameras and there just not going to release them due to the evidence they hold. This alone should be enough, to at the least question the official story, no?

racer8dan

Yes

No, He has shown 0 proof of "willfully hiding evidence". The video was about debunking his theory's, not calling him a deceitfully person, so He either can't debunk the rest of the topics or???

racer8dan

No. Wrong. Sorry, but wrong.

0:13 "While the assertions that Von Kleist makes about some of the events in the New York attacks may at first seem convincing, they do not stand up to further scrutiny. In fact, as you'll shortly see, much of the material presented in 'In Plane Sight' by Von Kleist is intentionally misrepresented. It is not accidental, or the result of sloppy work. And with so many documented anomalies and unanswered questions surrounding the attacks of 9/11, one must question the intent of those who choose to publicize unsupported and misrepresentive, sensational theories. They only serve to obfuscate. They draw attention and support away from legitimate questions, and justify the media's portrayal of those who question the official story as a lunatic fringe of conspiracy nuts. In so doing, people such as Von Kleist propagate disinformation. The question then becomes one of motive."

3:34 "If he would have just shown ten or twenty seconds of earlier footage from the same shot, it would have been obvious that what he was showing us was an obscured view of the collapse of the south tower. Is it plausible that Von Kleist did not know he was showing us the collapse of the south tower behind the north tower? Is it possible that Von Kleist had never seen the ten seconds of footage prior to the clip he shows us? When combining this footage with other views, he had to know he was showing us the collapse of the south tower when he and the people who worked on this film reviewed hours and hours of footage."

You get the idea. The person who made "Not In Plain Sight" is not simply showing that Von Kleist's claims are false. He is specifically showing that Von Kleist knowingly and purposefully misled the audience by saying things he had to have known were false. To claim that this is not what the filmmaker said about Von Kleist simply shows that you still have not watched the video, and I am utterly baffled why you are making such definitive statements about it without having done so.