No-planers: I challenge you to explain how all the videos and photos....

The theory presented in that video doesn't work. I debunked it here:
[video=youtube;fDXN4iGbJiw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDXN4iGbJiw[/video]

"07 The Key" is riddled with false claims. Get more info here:
http://debunkingnoplanes.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-lies-of-ace-baker.html

 

They can make all the assertions they want, without the evidence and calcs to prove their claims....they're simply talking out of their a$$.

- - - Updated - - -

He will simply dismiss your evidence, out of hand...for no valid reason.

 

I watched the Berlin Wall come down on tv.

are you saying...it didn't happen?

 

which claims

 

do you have ANY clue what so ever what IMPACT video means? DUH

 

so whats wrong about this?

 

then why are the columns cut the full distance of the wingtips?

are you admitting they used explosives the rest of the way?

 

They aren't cut the full distance of the wing tips.

Try again, Jojo.

 

It's all about the shadow being cast onto the south face. This guy gets it right:



There's a shadow wedge being cast on that side of the building.

The extremities of the "puff balls" are brightly lit by the sun. The rest of them are in the shadow, which creates the illusion that they're above the wings. They're not.

 

All of them. Particularly, the ones I address here:

 

Ditto. See why here.

 

*sigh when will this forum learn to just ignore no planers?

 

I've ignored two of them...

 

Well done. The truth is, A$$ Baker's dishonestly ignore all the videos and photos taken by the common ruck because it clearly shows, the emperor has no clothes.

 

think not put a circle around where you thijnk they are not cut

 

shadow?

thats loony toons! Who said that? the sun cant cast a shadow when its in front of the plane duh!

debunkers delusions not illusion

 

So, if it were CGI....why would the CGI plane, a vector object, loose its shape??

 

still no evidence that all the videos I posted are fake?

thought not.

 

you mean like this?



it didnt

it took too much time to add realistic detail in 2001

 

you really need to understand how badly you screwed up when you created that strawman, but I am not holding my breath.

 

Once again, you bring an apple to the orange show. Read the above question again.... If the plane is a CGI vector, and object and the goal of the animation is to fake the plane "melting" into the building, how does that vector object NOT "melt" into the building??? how does part of that vector object fail?

I know the answer so, think before you post another comment that has nothing to do with the question.

 

I am not going to teach you how to do animations! LOL

I cant imagine what you think you know since your question makes no sense

 

More like, the goal would have been to produce
an image that shows an airliner crashing into the WTC
and in that bit, it failed because the alleged crash did not
show what should have happened in the case of an airliner
striking a wall such as the WTC tower wall, ( or for that matter
the wall of the PENTAGON ) the airliner crashes that the
perpetrators want to sell the AMERICAN public, are not believable
as actual crashes of airliners at all + the fact that there is really no
accounting for the aircraft, we have buckets of alleged aircraft bits,
but no inventory of what was found and exactly how much of each
aircraft was found. and the excuse given is "we KNOW what happened,
why bother examining the aircraft bits"

This points to a VERY low standard of evidence
accepted as proof that there were any airliners at all.

 

you claim all the videos are fakes.

you have no evidence they are fakes.

 

not to people who are capable of processing and comprehending the english language