LOL! I loved how he talked about Rachel calling truthers loony. But I am a "no planer" kind of truther who is not nutty, and sees the same things in the towers collapse as he does. But planes also don't just glide through steel and concrete without leaving heavy debris on the ground either. Why can't he see that? Planes are "fragile" and fall apart on impacts. At least half of the "plane" IMO should have been still sticking out the building, and then fallen to the ground. What turned me into a "no planer" was this video. I was watching it one night, and thought that plane sure went in fast. Then I played with it, and if you pause it at 18 seconds in and then watch it frame by frame by clicking mouse on and off you will see what hit the towers. Where was the reconstruction of ANY plane lost on 9/11. Are we to believe that they got ALL of the DNA to identify everyone, but no reconstruction? Over 800 seats in 4 planes, where are they? Why weren't there ANY seats occupied or empty in the streets on NY? Or scattered in PA or Pentagon? Four planes with hardly any debris recovered. No questions on why what they did find wasn't reconstructed? A plane dug into the ground is hard to retrieve, but DNA is easy. I don't want to be a "no planer", but the evidence isn't there for 4 massive planes. Missiles explain the "flash" we see before the hit to be a homing device. IMO. It's hard enough to be a "truther" but even harder to be a "no planer". And why wouldn't the "terrorist" fly out of JFK? All that "planning" to have to fly over military bases because they couldn't fly out of NY. LOL! Watch the video, what do you see at 18 seconds in?

but perhaps William Seger will be along to explain every aspect as he usually attempts to do.
Meanwhile thanks for the video I will watch it asa time permits.

... that David Chandler would be along to explain every aspect of the stuff we were discussing, as he never attempts to do, but I'm sure he had some good reason for declining your invitation.

But anyway, "no-planers" use whole 'nother level of imaginary physics to rationalize their bizarre beliefs. I'm pretty sure that even Chandler understands how a 767 flying over 500 MPH could crash through those walls, and stuff like motion blur in video cameras, so maybe Politicalboi can ask him. The best "no-plane" debunkers are "truthers" anyway (e.g. Jim Hoffman).

We had an orange in our room that had a piece of straw from a broom stuck all the way through it! I saw blades of grass and leaves impaled into wood and concrete, and there was a piece of 2x4 stuck all the way through the trunk of a Silver Palm Tree. Silver Palms have some of the hardest wood imaginable. I've seen cars totalled, and people killed, from hitting one at 30 - 35mph.



Peace,

Ghost

... because then he said, "It was so infuriating to me because there is a very solid scientific core to the 9/11 truth movement" -- thereby proving Rachel's point, since he just spent the first half of the video trying to claim that his own obdurate self-delusions are part of that "very solid scientific core," despite being based on profound ignorance of things like structural mechanics and dynamic loading and common sense. This is a "scientist" who wants so much to believe that the buildings were brought down by explosives that he has apparently convinced himself that magical silent explosives exist, and that the "perps" were so proud of this amazing scientific achievement that they used about a 100 times more of it than was necessary to bring down the building, just to pointlessly pulverize concrete and hurl steel members away from the building. This is a "scientist" whose controlled demolition theory doesn't explain why the first seven feet of WTC 7's fall was not at free-fall, whereas the NIST theory does explain it, so he simply ignores that fact and lies about the free-fall being "right from the start," even though his own measurements show otherwise, and then accuses NIST of being deceptive.

I also loved his theory that idiotic nonsense like the "no-plane" bullshit was planted by the bad guys to make the "truth movement" look like a bunch of loonytoons, as if they need any help with that.

because like most truthers, you will point at an internet video as a "smoking gun" while completely ignoring the thousands of eye witnesses that actually saw the airplanes.

evidence that debunks your conspiracy theory too hack!

And if you were honest, you will admit that the reason Truthers depend on internet videos is theyhave no eye witnesses. That and the fact that there are thousands of witnesses that directly contradict their CTs - the Pentagon is the best example of that. The fact that a 757 flew at a very low altitude over a highway packed with the morning commute is simply ignored.

you would not have wrote what you just did! Do you put Barry Jennings eyewitness account first?
What about Beverly Eckert? or William Rodriguez?
Or all the eyewitnessses that saw molten steel. No! Only the ones who support your conspiracy theory.

David Chandler lies about 911. A physics teacher who can't do physics, and another failed engineer. Why is David Chandler spreading dumbed down lies about 911.