Oh we're back to viewers are supposed to look at your blobs and smudges and see an airplane in there somewhere? If we took that theory to a qualified psychologist they'd be scheduling us for indefinite amount of appointments lol I strongly suggest that you post your physics since you're evangelizing all this massive kinetic energy and making all these claims how it can easily go through the building but you haven't given us any physics to look at everyone is waiting for your physics where is it? I don't know about the rest of the readers here but when I see blobs and smudges it's nothing more than blobs and smudges I don't see airplanes or frogs or dragonflies I see blobs and smudges and what do they look like blobs and smudges that's why I have to depend on material evidence because blobs and smudges are not irrational proof of anything well it proves blobs and smudges. I suppose you prefer that I don't mention the fact that you contradicted yourself when you claim that a plane going that fast 540 was it disintegrates except when it impacts a steel building very odd especially one the size of the world trade center complete with a cartoon cut out!
This just goes to show you that some people will believe anyting the guv tells them to believe! There is no picture in those extremely modified smudge. Anyone can see that this has been faked. Well I guess not anyone.
Yep this is where we are still at. blobs and smudges are their proof of planes! LOL there is no plane in that pic. anyone should be able to see its a photoshop job lol
yeh we are, you were going on about all this kinetic energy and show us nothing what so ever. Kinetic energy and impact is data that is expressed mathematically, where is it, hiding in those blobs and smudges somewhere?
Give up your very misguided and inaccurate quest to prove the ridiculous. "We" aren't anywhere. WE know it was a plane.
no one cares about what you think you know. all we care about is that you can prove up the point and so far all we see is lots of hot air. Now you cant even give us any physics, hilarious! All we are getting is a lot of empty words and static noise from the debunker camp/ these guys are just using words they hear and when it comes to backing it up we get the big void!
You are most certainly not the spokesperson for "no one", you don't represent a "we". A plane. People saw it. People got on it. People crewed it. People serviced it, loaded it with food. It was scheduled. It took off. It was tracked by ATC. Bits of it were found. Bits of passengers were found. Large kinetic force.
Many of us who have been on a plane would understand the horror the passengers and crew experienced as the plane was clearly honing in on its target. But imagine the horror of the relatives and friends as they see moronic claims that there wasn't even a plane via some insane conspiracy theory. Made doubly worse by the persistence and evasion. So the thing with airports. They schedule flights, online booking and flight take-off times etc. Regular ground staff service these aircraft. Plane maintenance, taxiing, boarding crews. A team of people clean it and load it with food. Just to fake that background around a single flight is the kind of thing that an honest person would suggest was close to impossible. I listed the problems on page 1: After a truly ridiculous claim that there wasn't even a flight!
See folks, more of the same! The BIG empty void when asked to produce material evidence! He said she said, just look at our smudges and blobs, look really really really hard! Thats it keep looking until you see what we told you to see! You see it now right? right? right? No? then look again and keep looking until you see it! I listed the problems too, insufficient material evidence. (the BIG VOID) The usual 800 pound gorilla debunkers avoid at all costs.
Oh well I always give up because you can never prove up your claims with material evidence and neither do you concede. I assure you I will definitely give up.
Looks to me that you are trying to duck out of your requirement of burden of proof. you claim a plane went in you have to prove it NOT me. As far as physics let me know when any of you post some, all I see is people throwing around physics terms with no functional ability to use it. Since no physics is posted anyone can see that your claims are made up. Got anything better than smudges blobs and the BIG void for us yet?
like I said, you do not understand burden of proof … so you really think that cgi planes and smudges and blobs would hold up in a court of law??? … I would love to see your presentation … some gifs?
Id move for summary judgment and win right now. Nope its your claim, thats all on you and beta! Take your pick, plaintiff or defendant A simple motion to dismiss on the basis of insufficient evidence. Your blobs and smudges would never make it past a summary judgment. LOL
Be kind to everyone. Give up, logoff and find something of merit to do. It was a plane. You can arm wave away every single item, make idiotic claims about the ridiculous lists necessary and suggest that YOU need to be shown evidence. But in reality, all you've got is the observations of the internet cretin known as "ACE Baker". YOU have the burden of proof.
Bop is on claimant. (That means you, since you claim it is a plane) You are required to provide sufficient evidence. You have failed. Anyone thinks there is a snowballs chance in hell that any judge or jury on this planet is going to agree that blobs and smudges = a plane, without being in fear for his life or the safety of his family,well.... Id motion for summary judgment and dismissal with prejudice.
and thats precisely why youd lose in a NY second, you dont even know what the court would consider as evidence and you clearly have no idea how to present what you do have. All you every put up as I have been saying all along is is the BIG VOID!
Spare us all from your "insight". Spare us from your marvellous grasp of the English language. Your observations are just so good it's hard to argue with them. Your frequent cutting posts are just so amazing. Sign out, logoff and find something worthwhile to do with your time.
TV? You're trying to make it sound he was on the David Letterman Show, or the like. Mainly that poster's opinion. And see how he cherrypicks that part. See the original, and ponder that question, "To what end would two of the highest ranking officials in the US govt deliberately hinder, interfere or stand down the air defences that morning?" https://www.corbettreport.com/james...seeking-the-truth-conference-in-kuala-lumpur/ The other being Cheney, who effectively allowed whatever it was to strike the building, as Norman Mineta testifies - that's towards the end.
