911 Taboo Pt.3

this is not right, i never did believe that aircraft hit the pentagon, where is the wreckage? there would have been debris left from the engines ,big holes in the building etc, something is fishy,and it stinks like inside help

ever heard about homing systems? as everyone knows, airplanes can be flown without pilots. btw, in certain situations they could be flown much better than with pilots :)

Inside job. I used to believe it was planes. Fuckin' US hiding everything from us. Damn Free Masons.

I know why the Boeing engineer is a FORMER employee. He sounds like a dope head and a drunk.

Watch

Theory of  Ghostplane

September Clues

911 inside out pilots

Okay mea culpa on the meter feet thing, call it 1/4 at 36k feet.

Even so, it has absolutely no bearing on whether an aircraft can fly at those speeds, either it can or it can't.

If it can't then your argument is going nowhere, you are just trying to sound clever. If it can then contradict the thesis with evidence to that effect.

I am glad you are starting to argue the facts now, carry on like that, there is only one conclusion to reach over all.

Which brings me back to the original post.

I see posts all the time urging me to watch movies like 911 Taboo. "It will make a believer out of you" they claim. So I watch, and instead of well thought-out arguments and insightful observations, I get hugely shabby filmmaking like this air density rubbish. If I were a truther I'd be embarrassed to recommend it.

Maybe the makers of 911 Taboo should do like Loose Change & September Clues and release revised editions to correct all the mistakes!

I'm not saying this theory is correct at all, just that if you focus on the facts you will see the cracks in the official account of events.

Remember that truthers by and try to reverse engineer the events of the day, which of course will always lead to errors, hardly surprising.

The key is that the truth are trying, or should be trying, to prove that the official line is inconsistent with reality, not that their version is consistent.

Hence the push for a new, proper, investigation.

"if you focus on the facts you will see the cracks in the official account of events."

And so we come full circle: Re-read the original post & you'll see I *was* focusing on the facts - and the result is that I DISPROVED one of your "cracks"!

And your other "cracks" fall away with almost as easily. See, most of your basic truther arguments are rooted in bad science and/or dubious claims - and will "crack" a lot faster than the conclusions reached by a multitude of experts.

You cannot ever disprove truthers by disproving individual elements of the argument.

Try logic, the natural collapse hypothesis is false a priori, videos like these are not trying to prove that natural collapse did not occur, only trying to discover what DID occur.

So you debunk side issues all you like, but until you prove natural collapse brought down the three towers (like NIST and others tried and failed), you are not even out the starting blocks.