Here is a recent attempted debunking of a video I put together back in 2009 followed by my original video.
Debunking the Debunkery Jason Bermas & September Clues 9/11:
Note how the rebuttal video skips the section showing how the supposed nose of the plane is just an expulsion of debris. The video then goes on to ask the question "Why no Shiney planes?" Well the way the shadows were that day the planes don't look shiny, but the other videos I show, including amateur footage, all have a plane in them. So here is a better question posed by Jason in my video, "Why is there no footage showing a building exploding without a plane hitting it?" Only one such video has been touted as such, but it it is simply a matter of low-resolution video. Skip to 4:08 in the following video to see for yourself; the whole video is worth watching though.
It is also asked, "Wheres the debris?" Answer: seen flying out of the building in the "nose out" rebuttal, in the picture in my video of part of the fuselage on the roof of Building 5, in the picture in my video of a piece of landing gear on a building three blocks north of the WTC, and in a picture in my video of a piece of a Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D engine found on Church Street three blocks north of the WTC, which you show with the caption, "And what exactly is this find?"
There are good empirical arguments that this engine piece is as stated, but the argument that the engine is the wrong type makes no sense on an a priori basis as well. As poster "Edx" asked on the JREF forum, "...Why do you think these conspirators would intentionally plant an engine that wasn't from a Boeing 767 in the streets in order to fake evidence that a Boeing 767 crashed .... especially when they know people will take pictures of it and then someone could just stand up and say that it couldn't be from that plane?"
And as Jim Hoffman points out at 911research.wtc7.net, "The majority of Flight 175 and the vast majority of Flight 11 remains were trapped in the towers."
The rebuttal video then states, "Folks did say they had heard an explosion alright.. But no one talked about the engine noise, why is that." This point and others are debunked in this video by blog contributor Adam Taylor:
Factual back-up, sources, and further research materials for my and Adam's videos:
DEBUNKING “SEPTEMBER CLUES” - A POINT-BY-POINT ANALYSIS
Jason Bermas Debunks September Clues
Nose out hoax
Immortal Technique - Creation And Destruction - Instrumental.
9/11 Myths - Further debunking of the 9/11 TV Fakery 'nose out' claim
I got your nose
New Release of Second Plane Hitting WTC
My WTC Videos
9/11 — Plane Impacts: Real or Faked?
A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories
More pictures show aircraft parts at WTC after 9/11
How can an aluminum airplane punch through a steel building...
09 - Oddites - The Beats of Loose Change
9/11 No Planer - Open your eyes - War Planes vs Metal
No-Planes / Tv-Fakery theory demolished!
911 'No-Planes' Conspirators Seek To Sabotage Truth
The plane does decelerate:
Interpreting the Boeing-767 Deceleration During Impact with the WTC Tower
The F=MA argument
No "TV Fakery":
A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories
Letter Added to A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories
Rebuttal of Ace Baker's "Chopper 5 Composite" Analysis
DEBUNKING “SEPTEMBER CLUES” A POINT-BY-POINT ANALYSIS
September Clues - Busted! U-Tube version
South Towers Anomalies -- Busted!
Impossible speed? No:
Simulator Proves “Impossible Speed” was “probable” for Flt 11 and Flt 175
9/11: Impossible Speed & Impact -- Busted!
9/11: Possible or Impossible Speed?
Can planes penetrate steel structures? Yes:
9/11 No Planer Open your eyes War Planes vs Steel
There were reliable witnesses to the crashes:
No Planes Theory: R.I.P.
9/11 — Plane Impacts: Real or Faked?
Wednesday 8 February 2012
Debunking the Debunking of the Debunkery of September Clues
Posted on 03:47 by Unknown
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment