Lefty, typing LMAO before everything you say is just making you look childish.
Also youre a fine one to talk about social skills. Commenting on cooking channels and african music in the privacy of your home isnt exactly being social. You need to get out of the rut youre in .
Like i said before youre a fine one to critisize someones social skills with your obvious lack of them.
On your other account you try to socialize by giving praise and yet you fail there too. Then you put your wizards hat back on and become Merlin the know it all asshole. I bet youre the life of the party. A toast to Merlin
"tooltime" has done a good job of convincing himself that he is right,and that's about all i get from him.He says some thing about building 7 and then acts like it never happened.Anyway, I'm skeptical of the Bush era,and there is no way u can convince me differently.Look at what happened to our country in the 8 years Bush was in charge.I mean give me a fucking serious brake already.Clinton is an Ahole as well but at least we had a surplus,Bush left us in a hole that leads all the way to China.
Aren't here too many rabid proponents of the official 911 conspiracy theory here on the inter web statistically speaking? 'me thinks they doth protest too much!!'☺
Haven't the PTB's made all the salvaged 9/11 plane components classified info'? How could releasing these for independent verification by , say, several laboratories be a threat to national security? keep up the good work proudfootz!
For people who think this whole thing is 'solved' they sure spend a lot of time trying to 'debunk' the work of skeptics whose work has shown severe problems with the 'official story'.
Identifying the hijackers is "changing the subject?"
If you're saying the government destroyed the buildings, then you must be saying they ALSO hijacked the planes.
Otherwise, to claim that terrorists hijacked the planes, but the government blew up the buildings afterward, is just a little too convenient and ridiculous even for you.
The subject was whether anyone was 'qualified' to say anything about the cause of the physical damage to the skyscrapers. First I pointed out how it is believed the physical damage was apparently caused by jetliner impacts.
I guess you were unable to make your 'not qualified' remark stick, since what I write is in line with almost everyone else.
So you wanted to start a new argument about who might have hijacked the jets.
Ah, right-- if you don't have the evidence, argue the law-- just like when I said you're not qualified, you attacked MY qualifications to judge-- as if there's any connection there.
I personally think I'm through with trying to convince people about 9/11. By now so much info has come out that if people are aware of it and still unwilling to acknowledge the problems with the government/media's story then it's a matter of them not wanting to discard their ideology. Like this is a very good video but at the same time I doubt that any of these people I guess the so-called atheists in this case will consider any of the points you raise. It conflicts with their belief system
I think you're right - at this late date anyone who doesn't doubt the story the government's been pushing is in deep denial and likely to get angry when you try to wake them up.
Most people who deny that there's anything suspiscious about the official story of 9/11 also throw around the term conspiracy theory derogatively, meaning that they don't believe that the United States government has never engaged in any actions that could be classified as a conspiracy. That's just not historically accurate at all, there are numerous now declassified black ops and false flag ops like the Gulf of Tonkin, the USS Liberty, Operation Northwoods which the whole Joints of Staff wasfor
If one takes an honest look at the way the United States conducts it's imperialist conquests, it's pretty much a set thing when they want to attack a country. That's the thing I don't get, even people who know that the U.S. is imperialistic stick to this conspiracies don't happen line. But how can conspiracies not occur in a system that is conspiratorial by nature? If they're lying to the public that means they're conspiring, idiots need to go look up what the fuck the word conspiracy means
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
If the WTC was destroyed via demolition, how did the charges survive the plane impacts and how did the perpetrators know exactly where the planes would hit the buildings?
Why did Dr. Steven Jones circumvent the peer review process by not showing his nanothermite paper to the chief editor and printing it without her approval?
How can Marvin Bush be in charge of WTC security when he stopped working for Securecom in June of 2000?
Of course it's very easy to get a radio-controlled plane to hit wherever you like. That's why 'debunkers' ask rhetorical questions - they're afraid of the answers.
Steven Jones paper is there for anyone to answer if they like. No need to depend on anonymous youtube posters posing as debunkers. If they could prove it wrong, they would. Have they? No.
Good to see you admit that Bush's relatives were involved in WTC security. And Jeb Bush declared martial law 4 days before 9/11!
Radio controlled planes? Apparently the pilots had no way of contacting the tower to say they were not in control of the plane? How about some evidence to support this LIE?
Then why did Jones, who is well aware of the peer review process, refuse to allow the chief editor his work? She found out about the paper thru an email from a reporter a week after it was published.
I admitted nothing. I asked a question - that you still haven't answered.
Which pilots? The alleged hijackers? Or the registered pilots?
What I suggest can hardly be a lie if you haven't shown it's not true. You seem to have a hard time understanding the English language.
How did the editor not know what was in her journal until she heard about it a week later? That's a good reason to avoid dealing with such an incompetent person.
Duh, becasue Jones never told her. You already know this.
This is typical 911 twoofer investigation. ProudLIAR put out some insane theory, like radio controlled planes. He offers no supporting evidence but his theory remains fact until it is disproven.
You have to firts prove you theory. Proudfootz DEBUNKED!
So this editor has no idea what goes into her journal, doesn't even read it when it comes out & needs a reporter to tell her what she published? She's apparently the most incompetent editor ever. For all I know she did read it and forgot. Who would trust her when she hasn't a clue about what goes on at her journal?
How have you debuinked anything I've written? You haven't.
You asked how it *could* happen & I explained it to you. You *asked* for speculation, & now whine about it.
You have no evidence anyone is a liar. You're making wild and irresponsible claims.
If the editor was incompetent, that's a pretty good reason not to submit one's work to that person.
Everything you have written indicates she wasn't in touch with anything going on at the journal she supposedly edits: she didn't even read it when it was published. A reporter had to tell her what was in it.
If "would-be debunkers only debunk ourselves" then why after almost ten years you're still stuck on youtube pitching your magical theories to teenagers and not in a court of law?
It's not like there is a shortage of Bush/Cheney haters!
Excellent video. Modern skepticism is a "belief system", not a science. If you held a 8x11 piece of WHITE paper up and said it was white and present the theory and all the evidence as such. They will say it is black because people are relying on "confirmation bias" or "paternicity" or whatever the pseudo scientific term they conjure to support their assertions /claims. It is a religion. To these people the scientific method is tool for "confirmation bias." LOL.
Those basically prove that that aspect of the official story is true.
You truthers don't like to talk about that, do you?
Because your lore is so flimsy, there.
Cell phones back in 2001 could use the more robust analog AMPS protocol, which easily had enough range, also, they had airphones.
Do you honestly expect us to believe that the New World Order, or the Zionists, or whoever, had an army of voice-actors on hand to fabricate the phonecalls?
The FBI apparently didn't believe these reports of phone calls - they didn't present them in court. So it seems the 'official story' is the one that's flimsy.
So why were these calls faked? No need to frame a guilty party. So clearly someone tried to make people believe the hijack story as it was supposedly happening.
A clearer case for involvement could hardly be asked for.
@proudfootz how do you explain what I said, though?
Are you still going to insist that it was impossible to make phonecalls?
Because it wasn't it was in-fact very likely.
It was the most likely explanation.
Do you think they have a giant speak-n-spell that could emulate every inflection of their loved ones?
Are you going to be like that conceited ass Dylan Avery and lecture grieving family and tell them their the phone calls from their loved ones were faked?
You're asserting that these phonecalls were examined by a court, and deemed to be fake, which is absolutely NOT true, that's an absurd claim to make, and you need to back it up, which you can't, because it's not true.
What you might be trying to say is that it wasn't used as evidence, because they didn't need it, but they were never deemed to be fake that's stupid.
Where is even a single family member saying it's faked?
Read what I wrote - the FBI decided that only two calls were supposedly made from planes - one of which lasrted zero seconds. It appears these alleged phone calls are mostly myth.
You're claiming there's these calls, but what evidence have you? None as far as I can tell.
@proudfootz Uh, how about the evidence of all of the hundreds of people who *received* the phonecalls, and had conversations with people on Flight 93???
Are they all liars? Are they all govt agents?
Or perhaps they're patsies, and were just fooled by an army of voice actors.
National Geographic has a great documentary where they interview many of these people.
If you know anything about making a case for something, you know that it is up to the person making a claim like 'these calls were made from hijacked airplanes' to provide the convincing evidence.
Have you got any?
You also claim that 'hundreds' of people received calls from hijacked planes. Any evidence of that? If you were exaggerating, just say so now.
If I say that the sky is blue, I can only do so much to make my case.
The fact is, you're the one making extraordinary claims that greatly deviate from accepted fact, the onus is on YOU to prove your assertions.
Prove that the phonecalls could not have been made like Dylan Avery says (they could have), prove that the family members were lying, or at least cast doubt on the truthfulness of their statements.
What allegedly 'accepted fact' are you talking about?
The evidence indicates that cell phones technology just wasn't that advanced in 2001. Probably why the FBI didn't use the alleged cell phone calls as evidence of anything.
The onus is on the cell phone claimers to prove their case. They fail.
Nothing in my claim is 'extraordinary' - we know conspiracies exist - people get arrested for them, go on trial for them, and go to jail when convicted of them.
How much do you know about wireless communication technology?
Do you understand that, in 2001, cell phones had LONGER range than they do now?
They used the analog-based AMPS protocol, at least in rural areas.
The feds no longer require cell phones to support AMPS because it's too expensive, and it can't be muxed over the air and uses a lot more bandwidth and can't be managed like packetized digital protocols can.
Does this explain why the FBI retracted claims about alleged cell phone calls from hijacked jets on 9/11?
Or why experts told the press "Wireless communications networks weren't designed for ground-to-air communication. Cellular experts privately admit that they're surprised the calls were able to be placed from the hijacked planes"?
Do they explain why in 2004 airlines were saying that "Travelers could be talking on their personal cellphones as early as 2006" in modified jets?
@proudfootz I don't know about the internal paperwork of the FBI.
And no, cell phones were never designed nor intended to be used from planes, but that does NOT mean that they couldn't be, and, because they used a simpler, more robust technology, the range, and likelyhood of making a call, was much higher in 2001.
The third point is regarding a plan to install femtocells (mini cell tower relays) in planes, and I don't see how that contradicts anything else I've said.
Though you may claim it 'more likely' that cell phones would work from planes in 2001 than today, that's certainly not what actual experts at the time reported to the press.
It seems the airlines in 2004 thought that 'someday' passengers could make cell phone calls from specially modified planes. Are they stupid, too?
@proudfootz specially modified plane means that it has an onboard femtocell with a satellite relay.
That means that a mini cellular base-station is instructing your phone to greatly lower it's transmission power (because it's right nearby), and it will act as the cell tower and relay packets (text messages, voice calls, data).
You completely misunderstood what they were saying -- it's ok, they weren't really giving any technical details so I wouldn't expect you to know.
Yes, some speculate that perhaps the best way to explain the alleged cell phone calls is to posit that the planes could have had self-powered cell phone repeaters stashed on board to amplify the signals to ground towers.
@proudfootz ok, dude, that's crazy, I'm sorry, but that's nuts.
That would have caused massive feedback.
Cellphones try to adjust their power based on how strong the signal is, and you can't have that many phones on, even roaming, especially in 2001, right next to a tower.
I mean, it MAY have been possible with the latest military communications hardware, but this is all a very big stretch, the intuitive answer is that the phonecalls were REAL.
Even if we posit that some people (certainly not 'hundreds' as you claimed at first) received phone calls, and that some cell phone calls could have gotten through with 2001 technology, that doesn't prove that these calls did in fact come from the hijacked jets.
@accidentsinspace You see, people like him have always wished the 'group' would accept him even if he has pretended otherwise. This probably goes back to his schooldays. So, being a 'debunker' not only allows him an entry ticket into the 'group', he can be a spokesman for it. Tooltime always felt abit 'different' and this troubled him deeply. Being a 'debwunker' allows him to spearhead a campaign that has always been very close to his heart. That campaign is 'fitting in'. He feels accepted now.
@proudfootz Tooltime is under the delusion that he is in control of his own critical faculties. What is really happening is that he is fact being controlled by the media and what they intimate as being 'poular thought'. Simplistically his television, newspaper or radio hve convinced him that '9/11 Truther are conspiracy theorists living in some far off reality. This stance appeals to his subconscious need to stick with the group. CONTinued
@proudfootz you can make a "phone call" from a plane now, I do it myself.
On American Airlines, I hack the onboard wifi by spoofing the mac address of a paying customer (no way I'm paying $10 screw that), and I vpn into my SIP-based voip server at work, or I can just use skype.
The cell network outside the plane is not involved in this transaction at all.
So if it was allegedly so simple for cell phones to be used in 2001 (because the phones were so powerful and the towers so powerful, etc) then why would cell phone experts be so surprised that the calls should go through?
It seems there's something not quite right.
That the FBI retracted many of the cell phone claims seems to indicate they knew something was wrong with thiese claims.
@proudfootz as the popular mechanics guys said when they debated the loose-change people hosted by Amy Goodman "We didn't say they worked well, we said they worked"
I don't think there's any dispute that cell phones used to have greater range than cellphones do now, nobody will argue that digital phones can go farther, they can't
And, I imagine, lots of people continuously dialing their phones over and over again on a large scale, even if only 5% of calls went through, that could still be a lot.
@proudfootz again, it's probably unfair of me to expect you to know this, although, if you're arguing about it, you probably should be familiar with this.
It's all abstracted from you, but, indeed, planes use satellites, trying to maintain a data connection while traveling 500+ mph is bad for so many reasons.
So, this is a red herring.
Whether you can use an on-board relay changes nothing about how reliable cellphones were in 2001, from the air.
@proudfootz finally, I know someone who is a pilot, he's specifically told me how he used to be able to make phonecalls using his Startac, and how, over time, as the phone companies phased out that type of service, he was no longer able to.
A few phone calls here and there the network could handle, but there's no way they could handle thousands of people trying to roam while in the air.
And it could potentially cause cascades and packetstorms with onboard communications.
@proudfootz just to be 100% clear on this point, because a lot of truthers say this: nobody claimed that you would ever be able to use your cell phone to connect to ground-based cell towers, that's still very impractical for many, many reasons, and the FAA would never tolerate that kind of liability.
What the airline and phone companies said is, they may install very short range wireless relays in their planes, that your cellphone would connect to, and would be relayed via satellite.
@proudfootz NO, these calls went to ground stations, AMPS ground stations, that were dismantled years ago.
And no, there are no plans to let you use your cell phone to connect directly to ground stations below, that's not on the table, nor has it ever been.
And, under some circumstances, it's possible for any kind of cellphone to work from a plane, but, it's well known that digital cell phones (which are all we have now) have far shorter range than phones they used in 2001.
While all this is interesting, it seems very odd that experts in 2001 described these al;leged cell phone calls as 'surprising' and 'a fluke'.
But as you can see I have ample reason to believe as I do - it seems there are facts which support the idea that these cell phone calls are 'extraordinary' and therefore require extraordinary evidence to back them up.
@proudfootz I just need you to understand, your statements betray a deep and fundamental ignorance about wireless communication technology, and, while that's ok, you should NOT be trying to pivot an argument around your limited knowledge in this area.
I'm showing my comments to your colleagues, and we're having a bit of a laugh.
But I've found it to be typical for truthers.
The wikipedia articles on cellphone technology are a great place to start.
Who cares about your alleged colleagues and their alleged laughter?
I've found it to be typical of 'debunkers' to invent such stories out of whole cloth, as if to try to persuade others to hop on the 'bandwagon' and laugh at someone.
I don't pivot any argument around cell phone calls - and the FBI showed some reluctance to do so as well.
@proudfootz except, that my colleague has been designing networks, and cellphone backbones, since before I was born.
Not trying to be a jerk, but yeah.
And even if we assume you have a 5% chance of making a phone-call in 2001, that's up to 40 people attempting to connect every few seconds, for several hours, that's still a good chance for some phone-calls to go out, don't you think?
Even if you had a 1% chance the odds are pretty good *someone* would get through.
No one really cares about you alleged colleague and his alleged experience. It's just silly to bring it up.
The experts whose opinions were actually published and are part of the public record are more germaine to the issue of whether there is room to be skeptical of the cell phone claims.
@proudfootz GSM and CDMA (and, back then, TDMA used by Nextel) have significantly shorter range, and, if you're near a city, they certainly wouldn't have worked, since cells are much smaller and lower power, with more frequent handoffs.
AMPS is basically an analog radio with a digital protocol for channel negotiation, but then it's just voice over the air.
Very robust, but, again, expensive, and bandwidth-hungry.
In 2002, the FCC decided to no longer require A and B carriers to support AMPS service as of February 18, 2008. Since the AMPS standard is analog technology, it suffers from an inherently inefficient use of the frequency spectrum.
That means, that if you flew over, say New London, in 2005, a cell phone would NOT have worked, because it couldn't connect via AMPS.
Had some background research been done there would have been no need to try.
And yes, not just the recorded airphone calls (all operator calls are recorded), but also the flight data recorded data has been officially released to the public, that includes the cockpit microphones, all of which is consistent with the official story.
How do you explain the voicemails where people make deep personal confessions about things that only they could possibly know about, to family members?
@proudfootz I no more need to prove that than I need to prove that evolution is real, that the holocaust happened, that we landed on the moon, or that HIV causes AIDS.
You're the one with the outlandish opinions, the onus is on YOU.
And frankly, I've spent enough time doing this.
People have laid out what I'm saying far more eloquently.
I'm not a creationist. Why do you feel you have to lie to make your case? Not much confidence in sticking to the facts?
Now you pretend to speak for me. Building a strawman doesn't make your casse any stronger - just shows you can't get it together against what I actually write.
So far you have presented *nothing* but specious claims about what I allegedly 'believe' and what I'm allegedly 'like'.
You're a failure.
And this shows again what is in the mind of a 'debunker'. Nothing.
When one side of a debate resorts to motives of their opponent, they have nothing else to debate with. They need that light shone on them as well, since there's no debate going on. In the case of folks like tooltime and numerous other YouTube Atheists/skeptic/freethinker/intellectuals that have taken up outright rejection of anything a 'twoofer' has to say speaks volumes about their obvious need for extreme Muslims to have done it, while not having any such evidence for their preferred story.
Much has been made of allegations that the public doesn't pay any attention to 9/11 skeptics - opinion polls prove that this is another false 'fact' used by self-appointed 'debunkers' to try and trivialize 9/11 truth.
"There have been at least 8 published national polls of Americans, and they *all* show large percentages, even super-majorities, are skeptical of the OCT. People are much less sure about what happened; more people simply support further disclosure, full investigation, etc."
So experts who have done research actual scientists, Universities that do thorough experiments don't have a grasp either? I mean seriously, like I said before. Don't you think that if this evidence was so damning that it wouldn't be an issue anymore? Don't you think the public wouldn't see truthers as delusional, believing only what they choose to believe? In the beginning ppl were suspicious and had questions, but its gone too far, its gotten to be really ridiculous!
Yes, many actual scientists, engineers and other experts have examined the 'official story' and pointed out its many flaws.
Unfortunately, there are so many dim bulbs like tooltime spreading the 'word' that only the authorities he approves of have evidence.
So many seem to susceptible to his kind of 'argument from incredulity' that they think such rhetorical questions are a substitute for reasoned argument.
Are you freaking serious? What the hell are you talking about, your seriously repeating what im saying. I just finished saying I wasn't an expert! I really think your age is catching up to you. Your a smart guy, no joke your not stupid, that much i can tell. But you keep on saying the same thing over and over. The whole point of this is that you and other truthers CANT be wrong! Its very obvious, i just said I don't know everything. Your missing the point period! Please say something different!
I know you accept the story you have been told by authorities, and that's very nice for you.
But that is no reason why anyone *else* should also take it on faith.
Nor does it prove that those who are skeptical of your tale are wrong.
If all you are going to do is repeat that you 'believe' and want everyone else to 'believe' too, I think you've already made your point and can stop wasting everyone's time.
Im talking to you idiot! Who said everyone should take it on faith? NOBODY! This is why its so frustrating to argue with someone like you! All I ever said is that there is a reason why the "truth" hasn't come out in 9 fucking years. Again, evidence thats proven these theories wrong are fucking out in the open! Your the truth movement right? Your forgetting that your arguing the official story, not saying its TRUE and that EVERYONE should believe it, OKAY! Whats so confusing about that?
I guess I don't understand why you have to get so angry at people who look at the evidence and come up with a different conclusion than the one you freely admit you accept on authority because you don't understand it.
I'm not angry with you - I've tried to be patient despite your hectoring tone and outright insults.
Plenty of well-educated and expert professionals have put forward arguments and evidence that render the 'story' you were told questionable at best.
Once again, you are taking something I am saying and screwing it up. First my CAPS are meant to be evidence and now me saying Im not an expert is me not understanding the story. Your taking what Im saying and building your own version of it! This is why its hard to argue with you, your either not reading the comment or your just interpreting it wrong. Just reading some of yours and tooltimes comments I can see this is something you do quite often.
All this video was about was tooltime's use of false premises to arrive at an invalid conclusion - you have been unable to show any reason for any rational person to think otherwise than I have demonstrated.
Any fair minded person would agree that your posts have merely shown that you are here to support the official story and that for some vague reason have hostility towards those who are more skeptical of it.
Your remarks like 'get a life' and calling me 'idiot' is evidence of this anger.
Well buddy maybe its time to move on! 9 years later and im sick of people still arguing acting like they are gonna expose someone. Tooltime didn't make a video called the mind of Proudfootz did he? No you made a video about him, thats all you guys do is make videos on youtube and say you have solid proof that it was an inside job! Im guessing if it was so solid, maybe so many people wouldn't be saying "get a life" or "idiot"
We get it man, nobody is as smart as you! Unless they believe you!
So far all you've done really is re-type what Im saying! Just like every other truther, your just gonna say that everyones wrong but you! Im not an expert, Im not a scientist, thats why I rely on what they have concluded! Your basically saying the same thing over and over. As far as "presenting a rational reason to accept the truth" what the hell have you done yourself, besides thinking your much smarter than everyone! You just seem to think you have your shit together more than anyone...
Like you know all the facts and exactly what went down. I clearly said that experts don't see it the way you non-experts do! Your the one saying its something different so its you that needs to come up with an argument! How long has the truth been coming? When will it get here? Do you people have lives? Every single one of you CAN'T be wrong, its pretty much impossible! Thats your attitude and im not surprised by your comments.
There are experts on all sides of the issues surrounding 9/11 - so simple reliance on 'authority' will get you nowhere.
You haven't put forward a *single* valid argument in defense of tooltime (the subject of this video in case you forget) nor have you presented *any* evidence for your 'story' whatever it might be.
That which you assert without evidence I can dismiss without evidence.
You have not brought forward a single piece of convincing evidence for your story - you simply repeat over and over how you are right and everyone else is wrong.
Tooltime is wrong on the facts - my videos show that. You have presented nothing in defense of that clueless 'debunker'.
If you are unable to address the subject of this video, perhaps you should do your speechmaking elsewhere.
Here's foureleven trying to shift the 'burden of proof' onto skeptics of the official party line:
"I believe the story as it stands, you are the one who doesn't, which puts you in the position to come up with some kind of case."
We're just supposed to *assume* the 'story' he believes in doesn't need evidence or any kind of argument to be accepted, while all kinds of 'proof' is demanded of those who aren't convinced of the story he takes on faith alone.
What don't you understand about actual scientists, universities, constructional engineers who have done real research and studied what happened say the theories hold no water? I can tell already how you argue is by repeating what I say and then saying it makes no sense! Who is assuming I don' need evidence, its all out there for you to see. Its pretty ridiculous that you act as though it's not really out there! I have seen what theories are out there and its all gossip, nothing to prove its case
I was skeptical about the whole thing, when i start seeing the wild shit thats thrown out there like the planes were fake, or a missile shot the pentagon! Who the hell came up with this shit? Not an American Airlines, or a controlled demolition. Its really quite disrespectful to say phone calls are fake don't you think? This is what people like you do, assume some crazy theory and then back it up with nothing but gossip! Funny cause no real experts believe anything you guys put out there!
Who cares if stating the facts is 'disrespectful' or not? This isn't about 'respecting' authority or anything except what really happened.
There are plenty of people with expertise who have serious doubts about the 'official story' which we're all supposed to simply assume is true out of 'respect'.
So what have you proven? All you've done is claim that he has vague and improvable assertions, also stating that his conclusions are based on false premises! Funny cause thats how theories are created, by blurting out something without even making a case! I believe the story as it stands, you are the one who doesn't, which puts you in the position to come up with some kind of case. Again, 9 years later and all you can do is ignore experts and rely on youtube videos!
Yes, I have shown that tooltime failed to even make a case. He's not interested in learning anything about 9/11, just spouting his ignorant opinions in the most arrogant manner possible.
Apparently he feels perfectly justified in believing an 'official story' which he doesn't even understand. Much like the fundamentalists and creationists who never even read their bibles.
"thats how theories are created, by blurting out something without even making a case! " - you must be 'joking' again.
Yeah, okay your the one wasting time putting out videos trying to feed others a bunch of bull! Exactly what have you accomplished besides uploading a video about some ridiculous conspiracy? What kind of difference have you made? Speaking of heckling, your the one posting videos about tooltime, how is it you can say one thing but do the other? And by the way I know the comment is for me, you really don't have to start off with
Yeah and calling experts who disagree with your theories is called being in denial! But your argument would be something like, "they work for the government" right! Im just saying, I have heard of no actual evidence on your part, and the story is pretty much been confirmed by actual experts. Not a bunch of people who are confused about what happened and have questions that they constantly refuse to believe. Seen the videos and read what you guys think happened, its got no backbone, no evidence!
Just because you falsely assert, over and over again, that 9/11 skeptics 'have no evidence' does not make your repetitive and empty claim true.
My videos about tooltime conclusively show that whenever he gets anywhere near a fact he is wrong.
If you think you have anything to discuss on this that is fine - but so far you have done *nothing* that defends tooltime from the fact that he is in the wrong.
Your the one saying my CAPS are meant to be an argument, saying Im convinced is just my point of how you truthers take things. You automatically assume you know what your talking about, it must be quite embarrassing when thats all you can point out. Like I said there is a reason why ppl like you are being ignored, all you do is talk bullshit without being able to provide any kind of proof! I'll say it again, 9 years later and you still have nothing. Its over man, just move on with your life.
And you don't know what sarcasm is, I should have known that a truther as old as you wouldn't understand any kind of humor! It's okay Grandpa, just change your diaper and lay off the weird sexual comments. You old people sure are confused!
What's funny about your reply is the fact that you yourself are doing the same thing you are accusing this guy of doing. Except he's not trying to pawn it off as evidence for the truth. In fact everyone pulling conspiracy theories out of their ass is doing what you just said, NO EVIDENCE NO PROOF! This is why people speak so badly about truthers, they are never wrong and everyone is ignorant not to believe something that has no supporting EVIDENCE! 9 years later and what do you have?
If this "evidence" was so damning, why hasn't it proved anyone wrong? Its been 9 years and still nothing, there is a reason why people like you are being ignored, you just don't get it and that my friend is sad.
I've already shown tooltime's grasp of the facts is questionable. He makes wild claims that are factually false and his idiot fans gobble it up. So there does seem to be a market for his style of complete nonsense.
But 'popularity' isn't the point when it comes to the truth. You just don't seem to get it.
LMAO, what a white trash Nazi wannabe.
Another Gordon Duff, Dr alan Sabrosky, and Stormfront brain
damage victim. Totally lacking in social skills.
He will end up confessing his homosexual crush on his Uber
fuhrer at some point, they always do.
Merlin5by5 4 months ago
@Merlin5by5
Lefty, typing LMAO before everything you say is just making you look childish.
Also youre a fine one to talk about social skills. Commenting on cooking channels and african music in the privacy of your home isnt exactly being social. You need to get out of the rut youre in .
NeverOwned 4 months ago
@NeverOwned
Merlin's post tells us more about himself than anything else.
proudfootz 4 months ago
@proudfootz
ya vol herr commandant!
Merlin5by5 4 months ago
@Merlin5by5
Enjoy your fascist fantasy!
proudfootz 4 months ago
@proudfootz
YA YA, ven de Jewish Zionists get together with the Aliens and the NWO, then
get funding from the Banks and the corporations, then the NORMAL society
will truly learn you are NOT just an internet faggot with a bad attittude.
Sure they will.
Merlin5by5 4 months ago
@Merlin5by5
Clearly you are insane.
proudfootz 4 months ago
@NeverOwned
Really? Does following a youtube account and typing little snide remarks
like a little backbiting bitch constitute social skills? Don't run with the
big dogs, sonny boy, it's gonna bite you on the ass every time.
LMAO <-- See, now it's AFTER everything I say.
Merlin5by5 4 months ago
Comment removed
NeverOwned 4 months ago
Comment removed
NeverOwned 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Merlin5by5
Yes mervin, you do. No, marlin, it doesnt.
Like i said before youre a fine one to critisize someones social skills with your obvious lack of them.
On your other account you try to socialize by giving praise and yet you fail there too. Then you put your wizards hat back on and become Merlin the know it all asshole. I bet youre the life of the party. A toast to Merlin
NeverOwned 4 months ago
"tooltime" has done a good job of convincing himself that he is right,and that's about all i get from him.He says some thing about building 7 and then acts like it never happened.Anyway, I'm skeptical of the Bush era,and there is no way u can convince me differently.Look at what happened to our country in the 8 years Bush was in charge.I mean give me a fucking serious brake already.Clinton is an Ahole as well but at least we had a surplus,Bush left us in a hole that leads all the way to China.
420captain 6 months ago
Aren't here too many rabid proponents of the official 911 conspiracy theory here on the inter web statistically speaking? 'me thinks they doth protest too much!!'☺
Haven't the PTB's made all the salvaged 9/11 plane components classified info'? How could releasing these for independent verification by , say, several laboratories be a threat to national security? keep up the good work proudfootz!
MarkB1ngham 7 months ago
@MarkB1ngham
Thankz!
For people who think this whole thing is 'solved' they sure spend a lot of time trying to 'debunk' the work of skeptics whose work has shown severe problems with the 'official story'.
proudfootz 6 months ago
Proud-FEET! LOL
HELLO, you have NO QUALIFICATIONS! BUH-BYE!!!
SovereignStatesman 7 months ago
@SovereignStatesman
You are not qualified to declare anything about anyone's qualifications.
proudfootz 7 months ago
@proudfootz
"Determine if a box is empty, no experience necessary"
LOL dumbass
SovereignStatesman 7 months ago
@SovereignStatesman
Yes, your 'box' seems to be empty, as your posts reveal.
proudfootz 7 months ago
@proudfootz
That's all it takes to observe that you have NO QUALIFICATIONS to render judgment on the cause of building-damage.
SovereignStatesman 7 months ago
@SovereignStatesman
I just follow what those who do have qualifications have published.
From the looks of things it appears a couple of jets collided with them...
proudfootz 7 months ago
@proudfootz
So now you claim that the government hijacked the jets as well?
Yeah, whatever.
SovereignStatesman 7 months ago
@SovereignStatesman
Nice attempt to change the subject!
Go away, little troll.
proudfootz 7 months ago
@proudfootz
Identifying the hijackers is "changing the subject?"
If you're saying the government destroyed the buildings, then you must be saying they ALSO hijacked the planes.
Otherwise, to claim that terrorists hijacked the planes, but the government blew up the buildings afterward, is just a little too convenient and ridiculous even for you.
SovereignStatesman 7 months ago
@SovereignStatesman
The subject was whether anyone was 'qualified' to say anything about the cause of the physical damage to the skyscrapers. First I pointed out how it is believed the physical damage was apparently caused by jetliner impacts.
I guess you were unable to make your 'not qualified' remark stick, since what I write is in line with almost everyone else.
So you wanted to start a new argument about who might have hijacked the jets.
That's fine, but is a different topic.
proudfootz 7 months ago
@proudfootz
Ah, right-- if you don't have the evidence, argue the law-- just like when I said you're not qualified, you attacked MY qualifications to judge-- as if there's any connection there.
Whatever, Gollum... hope you find the Precious.
SovereignStatesman 7 months ago
But anyway great vid
dubified89 10 months ago
I personally think I'm through with trying to convince people about 9/11. By now so much info has come out that if people are aware of it and still unwilling to acknowledge the problems with the government/media's story then it's a matter of them not wanting to discard their ideology. Like this is a very good video but at the same time I doubt that any of these people I guess the so-called atheists in this case will consider any of the points you raise. It conflicts with their belief system
dubified89 10 months ago
@dubified89
I think you're right - at this late date anyone who doesn't doubt the story the government's been pushing is in deep denial and likely to get angry when you try to wake them up.
proudfootz 10 months ago
Most people who deny that there's anything suspiscious about the official story of 9/11 also throw around the term conspiracy theory derogatively, meaning that they don't believe that the United States government has never engaged in any actions that could be classified as a conspiracy. That's just not historically accurate at all, there are numerous now declassified black ops and false flag ops like the Gulf of Tonkin, the USS Liberty, Operation Northwoods which the whole Joints of Staff wasfor
dubified89 10 months ago
If one takes an honest look at the way the United States conducts it's imperialist conquests, it's pretty much a set thing when they want to attack a country. That's the thing I don't get, even people who know that the U.S. is imperialistic stick to this conspiracies don't happen line. But how can conspiracies not occur in a system that is conspiratorial by nature? If they're lying to the public that means they're conspiring, idiots need to go look up what the fuck the word conspiracy means
dubified89 10 months ago
ctcole77 is a fucking mental midget.
OntologicalQuandary 11 months ago
@OntologicalQuandary
Sure is persistant, though.
proudfootz 11 months ago
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
If the WTC was destroyed via demolition, how did the charges survive the plane impacts and how did the perpetrators know exactly where the planes would hit the buildings?
Why did Dr. Steven Jones circumvent the peer review process by not showing his nanothermite paper to the chief editor and printing it without her approval?
How can Marvin Bush be in charge of WTC security when he stopped working for Securecom in June of 2000?
ctcole77 1 year ago
@ctcole77
Of course it's very easy to get a radio-controlled plane to hit wherever you like. That's why 'debunkers' ask rhetorical questions - they're afraid of the answers.
Steven Jones paper is there for anyone to answer if they like. No need to depend on anonymous youtube posters posing as debunkers. If they could prove it wrong, they would. Have they? No.
Good to see you admit that Bush's relatives were involved in WTC security. And Jeb Bush declared martial law 4 days before 9/11!
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz
Radio controlled planes? Apparently the pilots had no way of contacting the tower to say they were not in control of the plane? How about some evidence to support this LIE?
Then why did Jones, who is well aware of the peer review process, refuse to allow the chief editor his work? She found out about the paper thru an email from a reporter a week after it was published.
I admitted nothing. I asked a question - that you still haven't answered.
proudfootz DEBUNKED!
ctcole77 1 year ago
@ctcole77
Which pilots? The alleged hijackers? Or the registered pilots?
What I suggest can hardly be a lie if you haven't shown it's not true. You seem to have a hard time understanding the English language.
How did the editor not know what was in her journal until she heard about it a week later? That's a good reason to avoid dealing with such an incompetent person.
You've failed again.
Yes, Proudfootz DEBUNKED ctcole77.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz
Duh, becasue Jones never told her. You already know this.
This is typical 911 twoofer investigation. ProudLIAR put out some insane theory, like radio controlled planes. He offers no supporting evidence but his theory remains fact until it is disproven.
You have to firts prove you theory. Proudfootz DEBUNKED!
ctcole77 1 year ago
So this editor has no idea what goes into her journal, doesn't even read it when it comes out & needs a reporter to tell her what she published? She's apparently the most incompetent editor ever. For all I know she did read it and forgot. Who would trust her when she hasn't a clue about what goes on at her journal?
How have you debuinked anything I've written? You haven't.
You asked how it *could* happen & I explained it to you. You *asked* for speculation, & now whine about it.
FAIL!
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz
She forgot? ROFL! That's not what LIARS harrit said.
You must be unemployed. I have never heard of a boss chasing down his employees just to review their work.
And Dr. Steven Jones knows the peer review process all too well.
Nice try liar!
ctcole77 1 year ago
@ctcole77
You have no evidence anyone is a liar. You're making wild and irresponsible claims.
If the editor was incompetent, that's a pretty good reason not to submit one's work to that person.
Everything you have written indicates she wasn't in touch with anything going on at the journal she supposedly edits: she didn't even read it when it was published. A reporter had to tell her what was in it.
You would-be debunkers only debunk yourselves.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz
Jones had NUMEROUS papers REJECTED by BYU. He is well aware that the editor in chief must review the final paper.
But this one time he "forgot"?
LMAO!
EPIC FAIL!
ctcole77 1 year ago
@proudfootz
If "would-be debunkers only debunk ourselves" then why after almost ten years you're still stuck on youtube pitching your magical theories to teenagers and not in a court of law?
It's not like there is a shortage of Bush/Cheney haters!
911 TRUTH = 911 LIES
ctcole77 1 year ago
@ctcole77
But it's true you guys debunk yourselves. Every post you make verifies the fact.
You haven't proved that there's any connection between 9/11 Truth and lies.
But there's plenty of evidence the Bush/Cheney Whitehouse was a nest of liars, crooks, and traitors.
That's why you love them.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz
It's pretty obvious that you're a bleeding heart liberal that attacks anyone you don't agree with.
You just use 911 as an attacking tool - and not very well I might add.
YOU WILL NEVER GET A NEW INVESTIGATION INTO 911!
NEVER!
Debunkers will ALWAYS be there to expose your lies and thwart all your efforts.
ctcole77 1 year ago
@ctcole77
What does being a liberal have to do with wanting murderers to face justice? Don't you fascists believe in punishing wrong-doers?
So far all you've done is debunk yourself.
You're an epic FAILURE.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz
If the editor was "incompetent" then why wasn't she fired? Jones and LIARS Harrit never said she was incompetent.
911 TRUTH = STRAWMAN
ctcole77 1 year ago
@ctcole77
The Bush years were years when incompetence was rewarded and science and honesty was looked down upon.
proudfootz 1 year ago
These paid propagandists like tooltime just keep on making their living off our tax dollars.
roscogre 1 year ago
No wiggle room!
I love it
CWonder7 1 year ago
Excellent video. Modern skepticism is a "belief system", not a science. If you held a 8x11 piece of WHITE paper up and said it was white and present the theory and all the evidence as such. They will say it is black because people are relying on "confirmation bias" or "paternicity" or whatever the pseudo scientific term they conjure to support their assertions /claims. It is a religion. To these people the scientific method is tool for "confirmation bias." LOL.
biped19 1 year ago
do you realize that the official story of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory?
it's the government-sanctioned conspiracy theory
6 out of 10 commissioners of the 9/11 so called "investigation" said they weren't allowed to do a proper investigation
INVESTIGATE 9/11
over 1200 ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS have gone on record as wanting a real investigation of the 9/11 attacks & they signed a petition
google ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH
TheFlex21 1 year ago
@TheFlex21 PFFFT.
What about the cellphone calls?
Those basically prove that that aspect of the official story is true.
You truthers don't like to talk about that, do you?
Because your lore is so flimsy, there.
Cell phones back in 2001 could use the more robust analog AMPS protocol, which easily had enough range, also, they had airphones.
Do you honestly expect us to believe that the New World Order, or the Zionists, or whoever, had an army of voice-actors on hand to fabricate the phonecalls?
AnonymousElektron 1 year ago
@AnonymousElektron
The FBI apparently didn't believe these reports of phone calls - they didn't present them in court. So it seems the 'official story' is the one that's flimsy.
So why were these calls faked? No need to frame a guilty party. So clearly someone tried to make people believe the hijack story as it was supposedly happening.
A clearer case for involvement could hardly be asked for.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz how do you explain what I said, though?
Are you still going to insist that it was impossible to make phonecalls?
Because it wasn't it was in-fact very likely.
It was the most likely explanation.
Do you think they have a giant speak-n-spell that could emulate every inflection of their loved ones?
Are you going to be like that conceited ass Dylan Avery and lecture grieving family and tell them their the phone calls from their loved ones were faked?
As if you would know?
Troof troof!!
AnonymousElektron 1 year ago
@AnonymousElektron
All I'm saying is thatthe FBI when they went to court dismissed most of these phone calls. They couldn't stand up in court.
If even the FBI has no confidence in this 'evidence' why should anyone else?
Apparently these stories are not trustworthy, thus your appeal to 'pity the poor families' is just an emotional tactic not based on anything real.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz that's not at all correct.
You're asserting that these phonecalls were examined by a court, and deemed to be fake, which is absolutely NOT true, that's an absurd claim to make, and you need to back it up, which you can't, because it's not true.
What you might be trying to say is that it wasn't used as evidence, because they didn't need it, but they were never deemed to be fake that's stupid.
Where is even a single family member saying it's faked?
Why go through the trouble?
AnonymousElektron 1 year ago
@AnonymousElektron
Read what I wrote - the FBI decided that only two calls were supposedly made from planes - one of which lasrted zero seconds. It appears these alleged phone calls are mostly myth.
You're claiming there's these calls, but what evidence have you? None as far as I can tell.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz Uh, how about the evidence of all of the hundreds of people who *received* the phonecalls, and had conversations with people on Flight 93???
Are they all liars? Are they all govt agents?
Or perhaps they're patsies, and were just fooled by an army of voice actors.
National Geographic has a great documentary where they interview many of these people.
AnonymousElektron 1 year ago
@AnonymousElektron
Now you're saying 'hundreds' of people received phone calls from planes on 9/11?
Now you're just making stuff up.
Show me where I can see a list of these 'hundreds' of people.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz and, what, you're saying that only two phonecalls were made?
I saw a woman interviewed who spoke to her son on flight 93.
Go tell her to her face that she's a liar, and that the person she spoke to was a trained voice-actor.
This isn't so much an appeal to emotion as it is an illustration of how flimsy your claims are.
You're claiming to know family members of people you've never met, better than they do.
AnonymousElektron 1 year ago
@AnonymousElektron
The FBI was able only to vouch for two phone calls from planes on 9/11.
So let the FBI tell her.
Keep on trying to make everyone feel sorry - I guess that's what you need to do when you have no evidence.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz dude, again, just because they didn't use them in a court case or something isn't the same as them declaring that they're faked.
That's a huge assertion to make, and nobody has seriously made it.
Are you making it? Are you saying that the phonecalls were *fake*?
If so, say it.
AnonymousElektron 1 year ago
@AnonymousElektron
If you know anything about making a case for something, you know that it is up to the person making a claim like 'these calls were made from hijacked airplanes' to provide the convincing evidence.
Have you got any?
You also claim that 'hundreds' of people received calls from hijacked planes. Any evidence of that? If you were exaggerating, just say so now.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz ok, make the case that the phonecalls, including the voicemails were faked.
They sound pretty real to me, and to everyone else.
Tell me that they're faked, and provide some miraculous evidence that they are.
You've failed to make the case that the phonecalls were faked.
The fact that so many phonecalls were made that fit the same pattern is proof, on its own.
You're the one saying that someone faked them.
And the only evidence is that some lawyers chose not to use them as evidence.
AnonymousElektron 1 year ago
@AnonymousElektron
You have failed to make the case the phone calls were real.
Therefore you have failed to back up your claim.
You still have failed to show there were 'hundreds' of them.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz No, the phone calls were real until you can prove otherwise.
What's your predicate?
What technical means could ANYONE use to fake the phone calls?
You're the one making the more extraordinary claim.
The simplest explanation is that the hundreds of phonecalls were real.
Your claim is absurd as saying that unicorns and elephants brought down the wtc.
AnonymousElektron 1 year ago
@AnonymousElektron
So you can just say whatever you want and I'm supposed to accept it without evidence unless I can 'disprove' it? Nice!
Where's your evidence of 'hundreds' of phone calls?
You don't have any and you're just making it up as you go.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz I can only do so much.
If I say that the sky is blue, I can only do so much to make my case.
The fact is, you're the one making extraordinary claims that greatly deviate from accepted fact, the onus is on YOU to prove your assertions.
Prove that the phonecalls could not have been made like Dylan Avery says (they could have), prove that the family members were lying, or at least cast doubt on the truthfulness of their statements.
AnonymousElektron 1 year ago
@AnonymousElektron
What allegedly 'accepted fact' are you talking about?
The evidence indicates that cell phones technology just wasn't that advanced in 2001. Probably why the FBI didn't use the alleged cell phone calls as evidence of anything.
The onus is on the cell phone claimers to prove their case. They fail.
Nothing in my claim is 'extraordinary' - we know conspiracies exist - people get arrested for them, go on trial for them, and go to jail when convicted of them.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz Hah! Got you!
Gotcha!
Now you're in my territory.
How much do you know about wireless communication technology?
Do you understand that, in 2001, cell phones had LONGER range than they do now?
They used the analog-based AMPS protocol, at least in rural areas.
The feds no longer require cell phones to support AMPS because it's too expensive, and it can't be muxed over the air and uses a lot more bandwidth and can't be managed like packetized digital protocols can.
AnonymousElektron 1 year ago
Does this explain why the FBI retracted claims about alleged cell phone calls from hijacked jets on 9/11?
Or why experts told the press "Wireless communications networks weren't designed for ground-to-air communication. Cellular experts privately admit that they're surprised the calls were able to be placed from the hijacked planes"?
Do they explain why in 2004 airlines were saying that "Travelers could be talking on their personal cellphones as early as 2006" in modified jets?
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz I don't know about the internal paperwork of the FBI.
And no, cell phones were never designed nor intended to be used from planes, but that does NOT mean that they couldn't be, and, because they used a simpler, more robust technology, the range, and likelyhood of making a call, was much higher in 2001.
The third point is regarding a plan to install femtocells (mini cell tower relays) in planes, and I don't see how that contradicts anything else I've said.
AnonymousElektron 1 year ago
@AnonymousElektron
Though you may claim it 'more likely' that cell phones would work from planes in 2001 than today, that's certainly not what actual experts at the time reported to the press.
It seems the airlines in 2004 thought that 'someday' passengers could make cell phone calls from specially modified planes. Are they stupid, too?
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz specially modified plane means that it has an onboard femtocell with a satellite relay.
That means that a mini cellular base-station is instructing your phone to greatly lower it's transmission power (because it's right nearby), and it will act as the cell tower and relay packets (text messages, voice calls, data).
You completely misunderstood what they were saying -- it's ok, they weren't really giving any technical details so I wouldn't expect you to know.
AnonymousElektron 1 year ago
@AnonymousElektron
Yes, some speculate that perhaps the best way to explain the alleged cell phone calls is to posit that the planes could have had self-powered cell phone repeaters stashed on board to amplify the signals to ground towers.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz ok, dude, that's crazy, I'm sorry, but that's nuts.
That would have caused massive feedback.
Cellphones try to adjust their power based on how strong the signal is, and you can't have that many phones on, even roaming, especially in 2001, right next to a tower.
I mean, it MAY have been possible with the latest military communications hardware, but this is all a very big stretch, the intuitive answer is that the phonecalls were REAL.
AnonymousElektron 1 year ago
@AnonymousElektron
Even if we posit that some people (certainly not 'hundreds' as you claimed at first) received phone calls, and that some cell phone calls could have gotten through with 2001 technology, that doesn't prove that these calls did in fact come from the hijacked jets.
It merely makes it plausible.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz well, I guess we'll have to agree there, buddy.
Because "plausible" is easily good enough for me.
You can reduce anything to those terms.
How do you know that what you see before you own eyes is really there?
Why do you believe anything at all, even the most basic, fundamental stuff?
Is it possible there was an elaborate conspiracy and the phone-calls were faked? YES "possible".
But, not likely.
And that's as certain as I, or you, for that matter, can be.
AnonymousElektron 1 year ago
@AnonymousElektron
Agreed.
There are a lot of possibilities, and the point of my video was that tooltime the 'debunker' was completely unable to open his eyes to them.
Instead he just wants to rant about 'troofers' and all the while expose his own ignorance.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz "Hello Mum. This is Mark Bingham".
accidentsinspace 1 year ago
@accidentsinspace
LOL! Don't you always have to identify yourself to your Mom every time you call her?
"Yes, *that* Mark Bingham..."
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz LOL. "Oh *that* Mark Bingham, yes son, I forgot about you existing for a wee second. Now, what are you calling me about?"
accidentsinspace 1 year ago
@accidentsinspace You see, people like him have always wished the 'group' would accept him even if he has pretended otherwise. This probably goes back to his schooldays. So, being a 'debunker' not only allows him an entry ticket into the 'group', he can be a spokesman for it. Tooltime always felt abit 'different' and this troubled him deeply. Being a 'debwunker' allows him to spearhead a campaign that has always been very close to his heart. That campaign is 'fitting in'. He feels accepted now.
accidentsinspace 1 year ago
@proudfootz Tooltime is under the delusion that he is in control of his own critical faculties. What is really happening is that he is fact being controlled by the media and what they intimate as being 'poular thought'. Simplistically his television, newspaper or radio hve convinced him that '9/11 Truther are conspiracy theorists living in some far off reality. This stance appeals to his subconscious need to stick with the group. CONTinued
accidentsinspace 1 year ago
@accidentsinspace
If this were biblical times he would follow the mob so as not to miss his opportunity to throw a few stones at an accused heretic.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz Agreed.
accidentsinspace 1 year ago
@accidentsinspace Have you watched September Clues?
accidentsinspace 1 year ago
@proudfootz you can make a "phone call" from a plane now, I do it myself.
On American Airlines, I hack the onboard wifi by spoofing the mac address of a paying customer (no way I'm paying $10 screw that), and I vpn into my SIP-based voip server at work, or I can just use skype.
The cell network outside the plane is not involved in this transaction at all.
AnonymousElektron 1 year ago
@AnonymousElektron
So because we can do something today, does that mean it could be done in 2001? Cell phone experts where surprised!
Maybe there was a time-inversion, and today's technology suddenly appeared on certain planes for a few hours?
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz NO.
No, they have nothing to do with each other.
Making cell phone calls from the air to the ground is unsupported, and, at least, worked better in 2001, than it does now.
My gsm tmobile can barely keep a connection on a moving train, much less a plane, because the air is so saturated, every frequency.
Today's technology was NOT used back in 2001, why are you not understanding this?
A fundamentally different thing happened than what is happening when you use an onboard cell today.
AnonymousElektron 1 year ago
@AnonymousElektron
So if it was allegedly so simple for cell phones to be used in 2001 (because the phones were so powerful and the towers so powerful, etc) then why would cell phone experts be so surprised that the calls should go through?
It seems there's something not quite right.
That the FBI retracted many of the cell phone claims seems to indicate they knew something was wrong with thiese claims.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz as the popular mechanics guys said when they debated the loose-change people hosted by Amy Goodman "We didn't say they worked well, we said they worked"
I don't think there's any dispute that cell phones used to have greater range than cellphones do now, nobody will argue that digital phones can go farther, they can't
And, I imagine, lots of people continuously dialing their phones over and over again on a large scale, even if only 5% of calls went through, that could still be a lot.
AnonymousElektron 1 year ago
@AnonymousElektron
As you can see, there's ample room to be skeptical of the cell phone claims - especially since some of these claims were withdrawn by the FBI.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz Tell me, if you used skype from a laptop, on the planes internet connection, would that somehow, in your mind, be a cellular phonecall?
Because it's not at all the same.
Does that analogy help you?
You do know, if you use skype, it has nothing to do with the cellular providers.
And the internet connections offered on flights now are relayed through a satellite (not terrestrial radio).
Only instead of wifi, it will be gsm and cdma that's offered.
AnonymousElektron 1 year ago
@proudfootz again, it's probably unfair of me to expect you to know this, although, if you're arguing about it, you probably should be familiar with this.
It's all abstracted from you, but, indeed, planes use satellites, trying to maintain a data connection while traveling 500+ mph is bad for so many reasons.
So, this is a red herring.
Whether you can use an on-board relay changes nothing about how reliable cellphones were in 2001, from the air.
AnonymousElektron 1 year ago
@AnonymousElektron
Yes, much of what you're saying seems to have nothing to do with the reliability of cell phones in 2001.
Based on contemprary accounts, experts were astonished that such a thing could happen.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz finally, I know someone who is a pilot, he's specifically told me how he used to be able to make phonecalls using his Startac, and how, over time, as the phone companies phased out that type of service, he was no longer able to.
A few phone calls here and there the network could handle, but there's no way they could handle thousands of people trying to roam while in the air.
And it could potentially cause cascades and packetstorms with onboard communications.
AnonymousElektron 1 year ago
@proudfootz just to be 100% clear on this point, because a lot of truthers say this: nobody claimed that you would ever be able to use your cell phone to connect to ground-based cell towers, that's still very impractical for many, many reasons, and the FAA would never tolerate that kind of liability.
What the airline and phone companies said is, they may install very short range wireless relays in their planes, that your cellphone would connect to, and would be relayed via satellite.
Femtocells
AnonymousElektron 1 year ago
@AnonymousElektron
"nobody claimed that you would *ever* be able to use your cell phone to connect to ground-based cell towers"
So how did these alleged cell phones connect to people on the other end in 2001?
Did the cells connect to satellites in space?
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz NO, these calls went to ground stations, AMPS ground stations, that were dismantled years ago.
And no, there are no plans to let you use your cell phone to connect directly to ground stations below, that's not on the table, nor has it ever been.
And, under some circumstances, it's possible for any kind of cellphone to work from a plane, but, it's well known that digital cell phones (which are all we have now) have far shorter range than phones they used in 2001.
AnonymousElektron 1 year ago
@AnonymousElektron
While all this is interesting, it seems very odd that experts in 2001 described these al;leged cell phone calls as 'surprising' and 'a fluke'.
But as you can see I have ample reason to believe as I do - it seems there are facts which support the idea that these cell phone calls are 'extraordinary' and therefore require extraordinary evidence to back them up.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz I just need you to understand, your statements betray a deep and fundamental ignorance about wireless communication technology, and, while that's ok, you should NOT be trying to pivot an argument around your limited knowledge in this area.
I'm showing my comments to your colleagues, and we're having a bit of a laugh.
But I've found it to be typical for truthers.
The wikipedia articles on cellphone technology are a great place to start.
Hit the books.
AnonymousElektron 1 year ago
@AnonymousElektron
Who cares about your alleged colleagues and their alleged laughter?
I've found it to be typical of 'debunkers' to invent such stories out of whole cloth, as if to try to persuade others to hop on the 'bandwagon' and laugh at someone.
I don't pivot any argument around cell phone calls - and the FBI showed some reluctance to do so as well.
That should tell you something.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz except, that my colleague has been designing networks, and cellphone backbones, since before I was born.
Not trying to be a jerk, but yeah.
And even if we assume you have a 5% chance of making a phone-call in 2001, that's up to 40 people attempting to connect every few seconds, for several hours, that's still a good chance for some phone-calls to go out, don't you think?
Even if you had a 1% chance the odds are pretty good *someone* would get through.
AnonymousElektron 1 year ago
@AnonymousElektron
No one really cares about you alleged colleague and his alleged experience. It's just silly to bring it up.
The experts whose opinions were actually published and are part of the public record are more germaine to the issue of whether there is room to be skeptical of the cell phone claims.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz GSM and CDMA (and, back then, TDMA used by Nextel) have significantly shorter range, and, if you're near a city, they certainly wouldn't have worked, since cells are much smaller and lower power, with more frequent handoffs.
AMPS is basically an analog radio with a digital protocol for channel negotiation, but then it's just voice over the air.
Very robust, but, again, expensive, and bandwidth-hungry.
Also, what about the GTE airphones?
AnonymousElektron 1 year ago
@proudfootz from wikipedia:
Quote:
In 2002, the FCC decided to no longer require A and B carriers to support AMPS service as of February 18, 2008. Since the AMPS standard is analog technology, it suffers from an inherently inefficient use of the frequency spectrum.
That means, that if you flew over, say New London, in 2005, a cell phone would NOT have worked, because it couldn't connect via AMPS.
Had some background research been done there would have been no need to try.
AnonymousElektron 1 year ago
@proudfootz
And yes, not just the recorded airphone calls (all operator calls are recorded), but also the flight data recorded data has been officially released to the public, that includes the cockpit microphones, all of which is consistent with the official story.
How do you explain the voicemails where people make deep personal confessions about things that only they could possibly know about, to family members?
You can listen for yourself on youtube.
AnonymousElektron 1 year ago
@AnonymousElektron
I'm in no need to 'explain' anything as you haven't produced any evidence in support of your position.
In fact, that you are multiplying the alleged phone calls to 'hundreds' seems to indicate you're inventing this out of thin air.
If you want to save any credibility, you need to give citations.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz I no more need to prove that than I need to prove that evolution is real, that the holocaust happened, that we landed on the moon, or that HIV causes AIDS.
You're the one with the outlandish opinions, the onus is on YOU.
And frankly, I've spent enough time doing this.
People have laid out what I'm saying far more eloquently.
Just search for 9/11 myths debunked etc.
Baiiii
AnonymousElektron 1 year ago
@AnonymousElektron
Nothing outlandish in my asking you to back up your claims.
Since you seem unwilling or unable to do so means that your argument isn't very convincing.
That you made up 'hundreds' of phone calls in a pathetic attempt to bolster your case tells us all something about the mind of a 'debunker'.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz you can't ask me to back up common knowledge stuff.
Do your own research, what I'm talking about is well-documented, it's THE TRUTH.
You can't just drive people away and then declare victory.
I have the facts on my side, all you have is shallow accusation and inference.
You people really are creationists, you add nothing to the discussion, you just doubt for the sake of doubting.
AnonymousElektron 1 year ago
@AnonymousElektron
Just as I thought - you are completely unable to back up your claims.
You cannot cite any 'fact' that there were 'hundreds' of phone calls from hijacked planes.
Far from being like 'creationists' I am skeptical of the stuff you take on faith because the authorities tell you so.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz you are a creationist, your beliefs are faith-based.
Do this thought experiment, is there ANY evidence that could be presented to you that would make you change your mind and believe the official story?
NO, there is not, nobody can change your beliefs -- that's called faith, and it isn't a virtue.
Personally, if someone could present me with evidence, I conceded I'd be forced to change my beliefs, but nobody has been able to.
Because I live a fact-driven life.
AnonymousElektron 1 year ago
I'm not a creationist. Why do you feel you have to lie to make your case? Not much confidence in sticking to the facts?
Now you pretend to speak for me. Building a strawman doesn't make your casse any stronger - just shows you can't get it together against what I actually write.
So far you have presented *nothing* but specious claims about what I allegedly 'believe' and what I'm allegedly 'like'.
You're a failure.
And this shows again what is in the mind of a 'debunker'. Nothing.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz and what about airphones? Those can't possibly be out of range, they're satellite-based.
AnonymousElektron 1 year ago
@AnonymousElektron
Yes, some suspect that if any calls went out from the hijacked jets they would most likely come from airphones.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz also Popular Mechanics.
AnonymousElektron 1 year ago
@AnonymousElektron
You *are* aware that the Popular Mechanics book has been thoroughly debunked for years now, right?
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz I don't know, the Loose Change people looked pretty foolish when they debated the Popular Mechanics people with Amy Goodman.
All they did was bicker and make asses of themselves.
AnonymousElektron 1 year ago
@AnonymousElektron
Who cares? Skeptics of the 'official story' of 9/11 are not all makers of 'Loose Change'.
The problems with Popular Mechanics article have been published already from several critics.
So it doesn't matter who comes off 'better' in a staged debate, but who has the facts.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz how was the debate staged?
Were the Loose Change people plants?
Nobody forced them to look like idiots, they did that all on their own.
AnonymousElektron 1 year ago
@AnonymousElektron
As I said - it makes no difference if you think the guys looked bad.
The point is whether the 'official story' holds up to scrutiny.
Apparently it doesn't.
proudfootz 1 year ago
When one side of a debate resorts to motives of their opponent, they have nothing else to debate with. They need that light shone on them as well, since there's no debate going on. In the case of folks like tooltime and numerous other YouTube Atheists/skeptic/freethinker/intellectuals that have taken up outright rejection of anything a 'twoofer' has to say speaks volumes about their obvious need for extreme Muslims to have done it, while not having any such evidence for their preferred story.
pakratmak 1 year ago
@pakratmak
Yes, there does seem to be an extreme amount of emotionalism firing up these would-be debunkers.
proudfootz 1 year ago
Much has been made of allegations that the public doesn't pay any attention to 9/11 skeptics - opinion polls prove that this is another false 'fact' used by self-appointed 'debunkers' to try and trivialize 9/11 truth.
"There have been at least 8 published national polls of Americans, and they *all* show large percentages, even super-majorities, are skeptical of the OCT. People are much less sure about what happened; more people simply support further disclosure, full investigation, etc."
proudfootz 2 years ago
So experts who have done research actual scientists, Universities that do thorough experiments don't have a grasp either? I mean seriously, like I said before. Don't you think that if this evidence was so damning that it wouldn't be an issue anymore? Don't you think the public wouldn't see truthers as delusional, believing only what they choose to believe? In the beginning ppl were suspicious and had questions, but its gone too far, its gotten to be really ridiculous!
foureleven666 2 years ago
Yes, many actual scientists, engineers and other experts have examined the 'official story' and pointed out its many flaws.
Unfortunately, there are so many dim bulbs like tooltime spreading the 'word' that only the authorities he approves of have evidence.
So many seem to susceptible to his kind of 'argument from incredulity' that they think such rhetorical questions are a substitute for reasoned argument.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Are you freaking serious? What the hell are you talking about, your seriously repeating what im saying. I just finished saying I wasn't an expert! I really think your age is catching up to you. Your a smart guy, no joke your not stupid, that much i can tell. But you keep on saying the same thing over and over. The whole point of this is that you and other truthers CANT be wrong! Its very obvious, i just said I don't know everything. Your missing the point period! Please say something different!
foureleven666 2 years ago
Still have no evidence to present?
Still have no argument?
I know you accept the story you have been told by authorities, and that's very nice for you.
But that is no reason why anyone *else* should also take it on faith.
Nor does it prove that those who are skeptical of your tale are wrong.
If all you are going to do is repeat that you 'believe' and want everyone else to 'believe' too, I think you've already made your point and can stop wasting everyone's time.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Im talking to you idiot! Who said everyone should take it on faith? NOBODY! This is why its so frustrating to argue with someone like you! All I ever said is that there is a reason why the "truth" hasn't come out in 9 fucking years. Again, evidence thats proven these theories wrong are fucking out in the open! Your the truth movement right? Your forgetting that your arguing the official story, not saying its TRUE and that EVERYONE should believe it, OKAY! Whats so confusing about that?
foureleven666 2 years ago 2
I guess I don't understand why you have to get so angry at people who look at the evidence and come up with a different conclusion than the one you freely admit you accept on authority because you don't understand it.
I'm not angry with you - I've tried to be patient despite your hectoring tone and outright insults.
Plenty of well-educated and expert professionals have put forward arguments and evidence that render the 'story' you were told questionable at best.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Once again, you are taking something I am saying and screwing it up. First my CAPS are meant to be evidence and now me saying Im not an expert is me not understanding the story. Your taking what Im saying and building your own version of it! This is why its hard to argue with you, your either not reading the comment or your just interpreting it wrong. Just reading some of yours and tooltimes comments I can see this is something you do quite often.
foureleven666 2 years ago
All this video was about was tooltime's use of false premises to arrive at an invalid conclusion - you have been unable to show any reason for any rational person to think otherwise than I have demonstrated.
Any fair minded person would agree that your posts have merely shown that you are here to support the official story and that for some vague reason have hostility towards those who are more skeptical of it.
Your remarks like 'get a life' and calling me 'idiot' is evidence of this anger.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Well buddy maybe its time to move on! 9 years later and im sick of people still arguing acting like they are gonna expose someone. Tooltime didn't make a video called the mind of Proudfootz did he? No you made a video about him, thats all you guys do is make videos on youtube and say you have solid proof that it was an inside job! Im guessing if it was so solid, maybe so many people wouldn't be saying "get a life" or "idiot"
We get it man, nobody is as smart as you! Unless they believe you!
foureleven666 2 years ago
fou -
The people saying 'get a life' and 'idiot' are often folks like tooltime - people with no solid grasp of the facts or the issues.
That's why it's necessary for folks like me to call them on their BS.
proudfootz 2 years ago
So far all you've done really is re-type what Im saying! Just like every other truther, your just gonna say that everyones wrong but you! Im not an expert, Im not a scientist, thats why I rely on what they have concluded! Your basically saying the same thing over and over. As far as "presenting a rational reason to accept the truth" what the hell have you done yourself, besides thinking your much smarter than everyone! You just seem to think you have your shit together more than anyone...
foureleven666 2 years ago
Like you know all the facts and exactly what went down. I clearly said that experts don't see it the way you non-experts do! Your the one saying its something different so its you that needs to come up with an argument! How long has the truth been coming? When will it get here? Do you people have lives? Every single one of you CAN'T be wrong, its pretty much impossible! Thats your attitude and im not surprised by your comments.
foureleven666 2 years ago
There are experts on all sides of the issues surrounding 9/11 - so simple reliance on 'authority' will get you nowhere.
You haven't put forward a *single* valid argument in defense of tooltime (the subject of this video in case you forget) nor have you presented *any* evidence for your 'story' whatever it might be.
That which you assert without evidence I can dismiss without evidence.
proudfootz 2 years ago
You have not brought forward a single piece of convincing evidence for your story - you simply repeat over and over how you are right and everyone else is wrong.
Tooltime is wrong on the facts - my videos show that. You have presented nothing in defense of that clueless 'debunker'.
If you are unable to address the subject of this video, perhaps you should do your speechmaking elsewhere.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Here's foureleven trying to shift the 'burden of proof' onto skeptics of the official party line:
"I believe the story as it stands, you are the one who doesn't, which puts you in the position to come up with some kind of case."
We're just supposed to *assume* the 'story' he believes in doesn't need evidence or any kind of argument to be accepted, while all kinds of 'proof' is demanded of those who aren't convinced of the story he takes on faith alone.
Fail on foureleven's part.
proudfootz 2 years ago
What don't you understand about actual scientists, universities, constructional engineers who have done real research and studied what happened say the theories hold no water? I can tell already how you argue is by repeating what I say and then saying it makes no sense! Who is assuming I don' need evidence, its all out there for you to see. Its pretty ridiculous that you act as though it's not really out there! I have seen what theories are out there and its all gossip, nothing to prove its case
foureleven666 2 years ago
I was skeptical about the whole thing, when i start seeing the wild shit thats thrown out there like the planes were fake, or a missile shot the pentagon! Who the hell came up with this shit? Not an American Airlines, or a controlled demolition. Its really quite disrespectful to say phone calls are fake don't you think? This is what people like you do, assume some crazy theory and then back it up with nothing but gossip! Funny cause no real experts believe anything you guys put out there!
foureleven666 2 years ago
Who cares if stating the facts is 'disrespectful' or not? This isn't about 'respecting' authority or anything except what really happened.
There are plenty of people with expertise who have serious doubts about the 'official story' which we're all supposed to simply assume is true out of 'respect'.
proudfootz 2 years ago
You still haven't presented any rational reason to accept the 'official story'.
There are actual scientists, architects, engineers, etc who have done real research and concluded that your story holds no water.
It's pretty ridiculous that you pretend like these experts aren't out there, or that the evidence doesn't exist, etc, etc.
So you need to put forward something specific and not simply assume your story is accurate.
Stop trying to shift the burden of proof and stop being so lazy.
proudfootz 2 years ago
So what have you proven? All you've done is claim that he has vague and improvable assertions, also stating that his conclusions are based on false premises! Funny cause thats how theories are created, by blurting out something without even making a case! I believe the story as it stands, you are the one who doesn't, which puts you in the position to come up with some kind of case. Again, 9 years later and all you can do is ignore experts and rely on youtube videos!
foureleven666 2 years ago
Yes, I have shown that tooltime failed to even make a case. He's not interested in learning anything about 9/11, just spouting his ignorant opinions in the most arrogant manner possible.
Apparently he feels perfectly justified in believing an 'official story' which he doesn't even understand. Much like the fundamentalists and creationists who never even read their bibles.
"thats how theories are created, by blurting out something without even making a case! " - you must be 'joking' again.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Yeah, okay your the one wasting time putting out videos trying to feed others a bunch of bull! Exactly what have you accomplished besides uploading a video about some ridiculous conspiracy? What kind of difference have you made? Speaking of heckling, your the one posting videos about tooltime, how is it you can say one thing but do the other? And by the way I know the comment is for me, you really don't have to start off with
fou -
Just a tip, seems like you could use one!
foureleven666 2 years ago
fou -
Yes, I have posted videos showing that tooltime is wrong on the facts, and based on such false premises his conclusions are invalid.
Since it is tooltime who is dishing out the bull it is only right that someone correct him.
There may be ways to 'debunk' 9/11 skeptics, but being a liar and a fool is not one of them.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Yeah and calling experts who disagree with your theories is called being in denial! But your argument would be something like, "they work for the government" right! Im just saying, I have heard of no actual evidence on your part, and the story is pretty much been confirmed by actual experts. Not a bunch of people who are confused about what happened and have questions that they constantly refuse to believe. Seen the videos and read what you guys think happened, its got no backbone, no evidence!
foureleven666 2 years ago
Just because you falsely assert, over and over again, that 9/11 skeptics 'have no evidence' does not make your repetitive and empty claim true.
My videos about tooltime conclusively show that whenever he gets anywhere near a fact he is wrong.
If you think you have anything to discuss on this that is fine - but so far you have done *nothing* that defends tooltime from the fact that he is in the wrong.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Your the one saying my CAPS are meant to be an argument, saying Im convinced is just my point of how you truthers take things. You automatically assume you know what your talking about, it must be quite embarrassing when thats all you can point out. Like I said there is a reason why ppl like you are being ignored, all you do is talk bullshit without being able to provide any kind of proof! I'll say it again, 9 years later and you still have nothing. Its over man, just move on with your life.
foureleven666 2 years ago
fou -
I have quite a good life.
The only problem is nothings like you whose only goal in life is to heckle those who accomplish things with their time.
proudfootz 2 years ago
And you don't know what sarcasm is, I should have known that a truther as old as you wouldn't understand any kind of humor! It's okay Grandpa, just change your diaper and lay off the weird sexual comments. You old people sure are confused!
foureleven666 2 years ago
fou -
Oh! Now I get it.
You're doing a parody of the typical clueless 9/11 'debunker'.
I could have sworn you were just as idiotic as tooltime and those other belligerent morons.
You wacky kids!
proudfootz 2 years ago
What's funny about your reply is the fact that you yourself are doing the same thing you are accusing this guy of doing. Except he's not trying to pawn it off as evidence for the truth. In fact everyone pulling conspiracy theories out of their ass is doing what you just said, NO EVIDENCE NO PROOF! This is why people speak so badly about truthers, they are never wrong and everyone is ignorant not to believe something that has no supporting EVIDENCE! 9 years later and what do you have?
foureleven666 2 years ago
fou -
I have shown that tooltime is wrong on the facts.
Since he seems to be basing his extraordinary conclusions on his false ideas of reality, his conclusions are invalid.
If you think skeptics have no evidence you are sadly mistaken.
proudfootz 2 years ago
If this "evidence" was so damning, why hasn't it proved anyone wrong? Its been 9 years and still nothing, there is a reason why people like you are being ignored, you just don't get it and that my friend is sad.
foureleven666 2 years ago
fou -
I've already shown tooltime's grasp of the facts is questionable. He makes wild claims that are factually false and his idiot fans gobble it up. So there does seem to be a market for his style of complete nonsense.
But 'popularity' isn't the point when it comes to the truth. You just don't seem to get it.
And that *is* sad.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Its not popularity dumbass, its called EVIDENCE! The fact that you or any paranoid idiot cannot provide any is SAD! Talk about not getting it!
foureleven666 2 years ago