Makers of Loose change on hardfire

[castle]

Dylan Avery and Jason bermas on hardfire

Part 1 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=142975074341498508&hl=en)

Part 2 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4070898042073434589&hl=en)


I will be the first to admit our film definitely contained errors it still does contain some dubious claims and it definitely does come to some conclusions that are not 100% backed up by the facts --- Dylan Avery.

[steevo]

They made the Loose Change movie when the research into the 911 cover-up was very much in it's infancy. They quite rightly kept updating that movie when they received new evidence.

Dylan Avery suggests we watch other movies such as 911 Press for Truth and also 911 Mysteries. Below are links so that you can watch the trailors to these movies :-

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8666444901186351024&q=911+press+for+truth&total=393&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93sIWihJ-sw

The full movies are on Google Video and are very easy to find.

[castle]

They made the Loose Change movie when the research into the 911 cover-up was very much in it's infancy. They quite rightly kept updating that movie when they received new evidence.

Dylan Avery suggests we watch other movies such as 911 Press for Truth and also 911 Mysteries. Below are links so that you can watch the trailors to these movies :-

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8666444901186351024&q=911+press+for+truth&total=393&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93sIWihJ-sw

The full movies are on Google Video and are very easy to find.

See em.

How would you explain them editing interviews and news footage to make it look like people are saying things they are not? Thats not a mistake thats deception.

Did you watch the programs, each one of the claims were thoroughly laid to rest thats why he said what he did at the beginning he knew what was coming. Did you see the look on Averys face he looks like hes going to be sick. All his lies and misinterpretations are being laid out and hes realising what a tosser hes been and can offer nothing in defence.

I dont know how people take these ding bats seriously when there clearly taking the piss out of you. When the mouth piece that is bermas claimed the 911 firefighters have been paid to keep quite obviously there was uproar. When he realized that was one lie to far he claimed someone played a Jedi mind trick on him and made him say it.

[steevo]

See em.

How would you explain them editing interviews and news footage to make it look like people are saying things they are not? Thats not a mistake thats deception.

Did you watch the programs, each one of the claims were thoroughly laid to rest thats why he said what he did at the beginning he knew what was coming. Did you see the look on Averys face he looks like hes going to be sick. All his lies and misinterpretations are being laid out and hes realising what a tosser hes been and can offer nothing in defence.

I dont know how people take these ding bats seriously when there clearly taking the piss out of you. When the mouth piece that is bermas claimed the 911 firefighters have been paid to keep quite obviously there was uproar. When he realized that was one lie to far he claimed someone played a Jedi mind trick on him and made him say it.

I think people can judge for themselves what the truth is. Like he says, watch 911 Press For Truth and 911 Mysteries.

[castle]

I think people can judge for themselves what the truth is. Like he says, watch 911 Press For Truth and 911 Mysteries.

Like i said i have.

Yes people can judge for themselves.

Dylan Avery however is not truth. You didn't address the point i made about them tampering with interviews to distort what people are saying.

What would you say if i told you Avery called the truth movement 99% bullshit.

How about when he said loose change is a good money spinner (thats all it is or thats what it is) man a good money spinner.

I think people should watch the 2 interviews as listening to Avery bang on unchallenged for hours could sound convincing, but put him up against someone that knows his stuff and he just sits there wishing he was somewhere else and his theories crumble.

Do you agree that JB and DA were absolutely demolished along with loose change?

[castle]

Fetzer V Mark Roberts. Google video
Part 1 (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-5692853335910175330&q=Fetzer+mark+roberts&total=7&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)
Part 2 (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-5795767092800734293&q=Fetzer+mark+roberts)
Part 3 (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=7639955686054850079&q=Fetzer+mark+roberts)

Makers of Loose change on democracy now. Google video
Part 1 (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-5560425935771341917)
Part 2
Part 3 (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=5760498500294610882)
Part 4 (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-7595562070555919502)
Part 5 (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=8955472026978355752)


9/11 Deniers Speak - Exposing the 9/11 "Truth" Movement and Loose Change. Google video
9/11 Deniers Speak 2 (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-7216643725166640147&q=9%2F11+Deniers+Speak&total=9&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1)

9/11 Deniers Speak - Ground Zero Edition. Google video
9/11 Deniers Speak (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=1287461440043399975&q=mark+roberts&total=274&start=30&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1)

[steevo]

Do you agree that JB and DA were absolutely demolished along with loose change?

No I dont. But I do think that the Twin Towers were demolished in a controlled demolition.

I think I shall agree to disagree on this one :)

[castle]

No I dont. But I do think that the Twin Towers were demolished in a controlled demolition.

I think I shall agree to disagree on this one :)

So why dont demolition experts apart from one maybe two agree with you? Do you know more about their job than they do or are they paid off or threatened?

[castle]

No I dont. But I do think that the Twin Towers were demolished in a controlled demolition.

I think I shall agree to disagree on this one :)

They were beaten hands down on every point. So much so that Avery sat there stunned for most of the program and said nothing, he couldn't he knew the game was up.

[father_pyramid]

I've never seen loose change, nor do I buy into every conspiracy thrown out there about 9/11(not that i don't think they aren't possible). But I don't care who you are, expert or not. Watching WTC 7 fall the way it did, it is obvious to anyone. I don't see how you can call the average person who questions that crazy, when with something as simple as the image of WTC 7 falling the way it did, is so blatantly obvious not from fire damage.

If the official story was true they would have no problem officially standing up to the allegations. Instead, there is nothing but bullshit magazine, and internet "debunkings", attacks, ridicule, and refusual to investigate further (which is obviously needed considering NIST even recently said their report couldn't even explain the collapses). The cover-ups, lack of investigation, lack of defense, military war games, and refusal to investigate further, should be enough for anyone to be allowed to have questions without being ridiculed. Why don't they simply release the footage from one of 100s of videos they have of the plane hitting the pentagon?

Not only all that but lets just say the official story is 100% correct and it was middle eastern terrorists independantly funded by Osama or w/e. Ok, still - look what was 9/11 used for. Look how the politicians used it. So we should also ask, Why would the U.S be attacked in the first place? Maybe it's because they've been in the middle east for a 1/2 century trying to take over and be world police. Foreign policy provoked the attacks. It was you're own fault U.S.A.

Also I thought this day in age we should be above and beyond revenge. 3000 americans are killed so we go kill 1/4 million Iraqs. Real mature. (uh-oh they killed 3000 of our people because we have been fucking with their countries for 50 years, lets go and fuck with their countries some more, maybe that will help). We all know America should be more mature than that. America could have gotten away with all their patriot act, security measures and bullshit without going to Iraq. And that goes to show what's really going on. Going into Iraq or any of these "terrorist -supporting" countries is not making the world more secure. Just the opposite. They only support terrorism because of the US foreign policy. The only thing that is being secured by these occupations/wars is a new world order.

But honestly, I don't beleive that is the case either. If it was terrorists that attacked etc, the terrorists were funded and controlled, at some point by the same source that controls the american gov't, etc. But my honest suspicious is that it was a straight inside job, no terrorists, it was the CIA, mass media control, etc., and the works, but I can't prove it.

[castle]

I've never seen loose change, nor do I buy into every conspiracy thrown out there about 9/11(not that i don't think they aren't possible). But I don't care who you are, expert or not. Watching WTC 7 fall the way it did, it is is obvious to anyone. I don't see how you can call the average person who questions that crazy, when with something as simple as the image of WTC 7 falling the way it did, is so blatantly obvious not from fire damage.

You dont say why its so blatantly obvious not from fire damage. It was a combination of thing not only fire damage. So if not fire damage impact etc what? I stand by my claim if its blatantly obviously foul play why cant the truthers get experts to agree? If its so obvious to a lay person why can a knolagable person see it?



If the official story was true they would have no problem officially standing up to the allegations. Instead, there is nothing but bullshit magazine, and internet "debunkings", attacks, ridicule, and refusual to investigate further (which is obviously needed considering NIST even recently said their report couldn't even explain the collapses). The cover-ups, lack of investigation, lack of defense, military war games, and refusal to investigate further, should be enough for anyone to be allowed to have questions without being ridiculed. Why don't they simply release the footage from one of 100s of videos they have of the plane hitting the pentagon?

Bullshit debunking's hmm Ive read see and heard conspiracy theories regarding 911 get kicked from here to next year. The trouble is when conspiracy theories start of with wrong information or even faked information from the start. Lack of investigation the 911 investigation has been the biggest ever held.


Not only all that but lets just say the official story is 100% correct and it was middle eastern terrorists independantly funded by Osama or w/e. Ok, still - look what was 9/11 used for. Look how the politicians used it. So we should also ask, Why would the U.S be attacked in the first place? Maybe it's because they've been in the middle east for a 1/2 century trying to take over and be world police. Foreign policy provoked the attacks. It was you're own fault U.S.A.

Osama didn't fund 911. Personally i couldn't give two shits about America apart from being pissed off the British got involved with them.



Also I thought this day in age we should be above and beyond revenge. 3000 americans are killed so we go kill 1/4 million Iraqs. Real mature. (uh-oh they killed 3000 of our people because we have been fucking with their countries for 50 years, lets go and fuck with their countries some more, maybe that will help). We all know America should be more mature than that. America could have gotten away with all their patriot act, security measures and bullshit without going to Iraq. And that goes to show what's really going on. Going into Iraq or any of these "terrorist -supporting" countries is not making the world more secure. Just the opposite. They only support terrorism because of the US foreign policy. The only thing that is being secured by these occupations/wars is a new world order.

Like i said i couldn't give 2 shits about America.


But honestly, I don't beleive that is the case either. If it was terrorists that attacked etc, the terrorists were funded and controlled, at some point by the same source that controls the american gov't, etc. But my honest suspicious is that it was a straight inside job, no terrorists, it was the CIA, mass media control, etc., and the works, but I can't prove it.

Evidence for this?

[father_pyramid]

You dont say why its so blatantly obvious not from fire damage. It was a combination of thing not only fire damage. So if not fire damage impact etc what? I stand by my claim if its blatantly obviously foul play why cant the truthers get experts to agree? If its so obvious to a lay person why can a knolagable person see it?




Bullshit debunking's hmm Ive read see and heard conspiracy theories regarding 911 get kicked from here to next year. The trouble is when conspiracy theories start of with wrong information or even faked information from the start. Lack of investigation the 911 investigation has been the biggest ever held.



Osama didn't fund 911. Personally i couldn't give two shits about America apart from being pissed off the British got involved with them.




Like i said i couldn't give 2 shits about America.



Evidence for this?

This post is worthless. You avoided pretty much everything I posted and only commented on a few things where I was making generalizations (saying Osama didnt fund it - even though i put w/e implying whatever ever or whoever funded it according to the official story. Also you accuse me of just saying fires brought down WTC 7, I'm not trying to be technical, and my point there still stands. Also I have personally interviewed people around my hometown and the demolition and steel workers I talked to's opinions vaired from extreme at one end of the spectrum to exteme at the other end, so you're wrong to say that experts only think one way.)

You also say conspiracy theorists have "had it handed to them" . Completely false. Only the ones like 20 year old dumb kids who make movies of made up stuff, sure. Good strawman there. There are retards who will believe anything, you can't just say oh, some retard beleives it was an inside job - therefor it can't be true. Most debunkers have already been debunked. I say you can't prove it one way or the other, you have to agree to disagree and re-open an honest investigation.

So, there is perfectly good reason to suspect " an inside job", whether or not it actually was an inside job matters not when we look at the overall situation as I explained in my previous post. Overall, I'm explaining a perspective, not arguing evidence. And you don't seem to understand that. As do most debunkers. (i'm not really supporting any particular conspiracy points you notice, im exploring this one a larger scale). And you avoided everything I said about "if the official story was true".



And you saying you "don't care about America". So what? Your point?

[father_pyramid]

Answer this my friend, NIST themselves said that the NIST report cannot for surely explain why the towers fell the way they did. Are you saying that you can but NIST can't? You should phone them and tell them why, I think they'd like to know.

There are so many other things as well, like WTC7 being reported as fallen before it did. That eventually debunkers are just trying to make excuse after excuse to try and refute coincidences. Each excuse makes it more unlikely, while each coincidence makes it more likely (see statistics).

[castle]

Thanks very much.

[castle]

Answer this my friend, NIST themselves said that the NIST report cannot for surely explain why the towers fell the way they did. Are you saying that you can but NIST can't? You should phone them and tell them why, I think they'd like to know.

Did i say i could? No well then stop acting the fool.

And didn't NIST say they cant explain everything, everything is not anything.

[father_pyramid]

Did i say i could? No well then stop acting the fool.

And didn't NIST say they cant explain everything, everything is not anything.

How Am I acting the fool? I'm just trying to say there is everyright to be concerned and think it was an inside job. Not saying it WAS an inside job, just that there is right to think it was and totally enoguh reason to re-open investigation. Although I think it was, and evidence depending on your perspective and scope of analyzation, says it was, I'm going to get in an argument over evidence we can just agree to disagree and hope one day it does get solved.

[castle]

BTW i never accused you of saying only fire, you only mentioned fire dont put your mistakes on me.

[castle]

How Am I acting the fool? I'm just trying to say there is everyright to be concerned and think it was an inside job. Not saying it WAS an inside job, just that there is right to think it was and totally enoguh reason to re-open investigation. Although I think it was, and evidence depending on your perspective and scope of analyzation, says it was, I'm going to get in an argument over evidence we can just agree to disagree and hope one day it does get solved.


OK investigation reopened what do you want re investigated or what do you think needs investigating that wasnt?

[father_pyramid]

And didn't NIST say they cant explain everything, everything is not anything.

no but one thing they said they could not explain was the buildings collapses.

BTW i never accused you of saying only fire, you only mentioned fire dont put your mistakes on me.

And you as a counter pointed out how I only said fire. Just pointing out how debunkers work usually, they only seem to focus on things like that, generalizations that don't matter.


OK investigation reopened what do you want re investigated or what do you think needs investigating that wasnt?

Sorry friend, but did you read my post? I'm definitely not up for a debate about the evidence right now. I've been through it 100 times before. Both sides have very strong cases, each side thinks they are right. We'll have to agree to disagree. We need an OFFICAL investigation re-opened, and by an independent unbias organization overseen by the people. And we need government co-operation (release the videos/photos, and many other information). Who know's if the full truth will ever be known.

What we can do though is look what is happening because of 9/11, and hopefully awaken to some of the ugliness that is going on, and then we can began to fix it once we understand the problem.

[joyful]

'Castle', Avery is bad and Jim Fetzer is good? Are you sure? ;)

[castle]

'Castle', Avery is bad and Jim Fetzer is good? Are you sure? ;)

Who the hell said Fetzer is good, did you watch the video i posted? Fetzer is a good candidate for the biggest ass hole in the know world.

Please explain where you got the idea i thought Fetzer is good. Did you just look at the titles of the videos i posted and make up your mind from that?

[castle]

father pyramid you enter a thread about loose change and its makers even though you havent seen it. The thread inevitably leads on to the world trade center building collapse which you start to comment on now you say you dont want to chat about that. I'm wondering why your in this thread.

About NIST are you sure they said they couldn't explain why the buildings fell? Have you a link? I thought they had said they couldn't explain every detail as i doubt anybody could in such a complex chain of events.

[father_pyramid]

father pyramid you enter a thread about loose change and its makers even though you havent seen it. The thread inevitably leads on to the world trade center building collapse which you start to comment on now you say you dont want to chat about that. I'm wondering why your in this thread.

About NIST are you sure they said they couldn't explain why the buildings fell? Have you a link? I thought they had said they couldn't explain every detail as i doubt anybody could in such a complex chain of events.

I entered the thread to point out that "debunking" loose change isn't proving anything other than some dumb kids are dumb.


"NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable
Implicitly acknowledges controlled demolition only means by which towers could have fallen at free fall speed
In a recent letter (PDF link) to 9/11 victim's family representatives Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, NIST states, "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

A 10,000 page scientific study only offers theories as to how the "collapse initiation" proceeded and fails to address how it was possible for part of a WTC structure to fall through the path of most resistance at freefall speed, completely violating the accepted laws of physics."


"NIST'S 10,000-page report purports to explain what it calls "collapse initiation" -- the loss of several floors' vertical support," writes Kevin Barrett of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. "In order to dream up this preposterous scenario, NIST had to ignore its own tests that showed that virtually none of the steel got hotter than 500 degrees f. It had to claim that somehow the planes took out many core columns, despite the fact that only a direct hit by an engine would have been likely to do so, and that the chances of this happening even once are fairly low. It had to preposterously allege that the plane that nicked the corner of the South Tower took out more core columns than the one that hit the North Tower almost dead center. It had to tweak all the parameters till they screamed bloody murder and say that the steel was far weaker than it actually was, the fire was far hotter than it actually was, the sagging was far greater than it actually was, and so on. And so NIST hallucinated a computer-generated fantasy scenario for "collapse initiation"--the failure of a few floors."

"But how do you get from the failure of a few floors to total collapse at free-fall speed of the entire structure? The short answer: You don't. Anyone with the slightest grasp of the laws of physics understands that even if all of the vertical supports on a few floors somehow failed catastrophically at exactly the same moment -- a virtually impossible event, but one necessary to explain why the Towers would come straight down rather than toppling sideways -- the top part of the building could not fall THROUGH the still-intact, highly robust lower part of the building, straight through the path of most resistance, just as fast as it would have fallen through thin air."

"Thus total free-fall collapse, even given NIST's ridiculous "initiation" scenario, is utterly impossible. The probability of it happening is exactly equal to the probability of the whole building suddenly falling upward and landing on the moon," concludes Barrett.

NIST have yet to properly address the sudden freefall collapse of WTC Building 7, which imploded on the late afternoon of 9/11 despite not being hit by a jetliner.

In August 2006, NIST promised to scientifically evaluate whether explosive devices could have contributed to the 47-story building's collapse but no answers have been forthcoming.

In August of this year, James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, called for an independent inquiry into NIST's investigation of the collapse of the twin towers.

Quintiere said NIST's conclusions were "questionable", that they failed to follow standard scientific procedures and that their failure to address Building 7 belied the fact that the investigation was incomplete.

[castle]

Hold on its not like whats in loose change is the opposite to what the truth movements all about. So if what they are saying is dumb then the truth movement is dumb. What in loose change is different from what the truthers say? Sorry i forgot you havent seen it.

"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse." is ok the rest is crap.

As you know i asked for a link to where NIST say what you claim not some CT's dodgy interpretation of what they said.

[father_pyramid]

Hold on its not like whats in loose change is the opposite to what the truth movements all about. So if what they are saying is dumb then the truth movement is dumb. What in loose change is different from what the truthers say? Sorry i forgot you havent seen it.

"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse." is ok the rest is crap.

The truth movement isn't dumb, it just contains alot of dumb people with dumb ideas. It also contains genuis with magnificient insight. I think most of the smart ones though aren't a part of any official movement, they are just spiritually aware and want to search for truth. And most of the ones that assosiate themselves with the movement are bandwagon hoppers with anti-govt, fear-based belief systems, and so they all chime in on specific points about what happened 9/11 which gets them nowhere and makes them look bad when they promote disinfo without even knowing it, when all you need to do is take a step back and look at the whole situation to figure out whats really going on.

[father_pyramid]

Hold on its not like whats in loose change is the opposite to what the truth movements all about.

The truth is never dumb. And it cannot be represented by a film made by young dumb kids. It's way bigger than that, it's spiritual (and i don't mean religious).

Also, I have to go and cannot carry on this conversation at the moment, nor do I want to. I just wanted to make the statement that you can't prove there is no conspiracy by pointing out mistakes and errors by some conspiracy theorists. Just because it is a conspiracy does not mean every conspiracy point has to be true. Sorry I cannot provide a good debate like you want of conspiracy vs not a conspiracy, I'm just not up for it. Someone here probably will though I'm sure if you keep pushing.

[castle]

Hold on you said "debunking loose change isn't proving anything other than some dumb kids are dumb".

Well seeing as loose change is the flag ship of the truth movement and whats contained in loose change is the backbone of the truth movement every hit loose change takes is a hit for the truth movement.

The truth movement claim Hani Hanjour couldn't fly a plane. Loose change claims Hani Hanjour couldn't fly a plane. When you disprove one it disproves the other.

[father_pyramid]

Hold on you said "debunking loose change isn't proving anything other than some dumb kids are dumb".

Well seeing as loose change is the flag ship of the truth movement and whats contained in loose change is the backbone of the truth movement every hit loose change takes is a hit for the truth movement.

The truth movement claim Hani Hanjour couldn't fly a plane. Loose change claims Hani Hanjour couldn't fly a plane. When you disprove one it disproves the other.

:rolleyes:

But it's not about whether or not specific claims like that or true or not. It's a much bigger picture, just go on keep ingoring it.

Also, loose change is a promotional tool. No flag-ship. That's it. Most people I've seen that call themselves truther's don't support loose change much either. There is alot of dis-info in the movement.

My opinion on that one claim about "Hani Hanjour couldn't fly a plane". Is I don't care whether or not he could fly a plane, maybe he held a knife to the pilot's head and made him fly it. And either way it would be very difficult to make those manuveurs and fly with that accuracy even with a trained pilot(at least the pentagon plane crash). Who knows, it really doesn't matter, the truth is still the truth even if the official story is true, it is a part of a vast conspiracy as I explained in previous posts which you ignored. And so, to me the truth movement is about more than 9/11, 9/11 is the event that has sparked spiritual journeys for truth. That is the REAL truth movement.

Read back through my posts because you ignore my answers to your points you continue to bring up. Also, you'll have to direct any more points elsewhere as I am leaving this debate. I've made my point loud and clear. Interpret it as you like. These type of convos (discussing conspiracy vs not a conspiracy) go forever and don't get anywhere. I'd rather put my efforts elsewhere as I already know where I stand.

[castle]

:rolleyes:

But it's not about whether or not specific claims like that or true or not. It's a much bigger picture, just go on keep ingoring it.

Also, loose change is a promotional tool. No flag-ship. That's it. Most people I've seen that call themselves truther's don't support loose change much either. There is alot of dis-info in the movement.

My opinion on that one claim about "Hani Hanjour couldn't fly a plane". Is I don't care whether or not he could fly a plane, maybe he held a knife to the pilot's head and made him fly it. And either way it would be very difficult to make those manuveurs and fly with that accuracy even with a trained pilot(at least the pentagon plane crash). Who knows, it really doesn't matter, the truth is still the truth even if the official story is true, it is a part of a vast conspiracy as I explained in previous posts which you ignored. And so, to me the truth movement is about more than 9/11, 9/11 is the event that has sparked spiritual journeys for truth. That is the REAL truth movement.

Read back through my posts because you ignore my answers to your points you continue to bring up. Also, you'll have to direct any more points elsewhere as I am leaving this debate. I've made my point loud and clear. Interpret it as you like. These type of convos (discussing conspiracy vs not a conspiracy) go forever and don't get anywhere. I'd rather put my efforts elsewhere as I already know where I stand.

Yes you should go as you appear to be in the wrong thread.

When all the specific claims are false then there's your bigger picture.

Your wrong about the impact LC and Avery have had on the truth movement.

Your claims that the maneuvers were difficult are bogus (ask pilots i did)

[father_pyramid]

Yes you should go as you appear to be in the wrong thread.
Correct.


When all the specific claims are false then there's your bigger picture.

Not true, many official claims defy science(see NIST report). Opinion.


Your wrong about the impact LC and Avery have had on the truth movement.

Opinion.


Your claims that the maneuvers were difficult are bogus (ask pilots i did)
Opinion. As the pilot I've personally spoken with said otherwise, and have also read many other accounts from high ranking military officials who've said the same. (i'm sure there are some of those news bits posted somewhere on this site even)

[castle]

So the NIST report defies science does it, lol.

Avery is one of the leading lights in the truth movement and loose change is by far and away the most watched 911 film out there. Thats how much impact hes had and thats fact.

Well Ive spoke to 4 pilots personally and read umpteen accounts that poo poo the idea of complicated maneuvers. In fact there's a video on youtube where they stick a guy in a simulator and he pulls off what Hanjour did first go. You say it dosent matter if he could fly or not of course it does if he couldnt then the official account is wrong. Then again how many pilots with a private and commercial pilots licence with over 600 hours flying time who couldn't fly. Whats wrong here is its another bogus claim by the truthers.

[father_pyramid]

So the NIST report defies science does it, lol.

Avery is one of the leading lights in the truth movement and loose change is by far and away the most watched 911 film out there. Thats how much impact hes had and thats fact.

Well Ive spoke to 4 pilots personally and read umpteen accounts that poo poo the idea of complicated maneuvers. In fact there's a video on youtube where they stick a guy in a simulator and he pulls off what Hanjour did first go. You say it dosent matter if he could fly or not of course it does if he couldnt then the official account is wrong. Then again how many pilots with a private and commercial pilots licence with over 600 hours flying time who couldn't fly. Whats wrong here is its another bogus claim by the truthers.

So I guess some pilots say one thing, other pilots say another. That goes down as opinion.
What wrong is you keep avoiding things. Stop worrying about proving the official story right or wrong, and look at the big picture. How it happened doesn't matter as much as why and what for. So like you continue to do, stop ignoring this as It was what I said in my first post. Official story true or not of how 9/11 happened doesn't really mean as much as why it happened and what for.

[castle]

Whats wrong with me, your a cheeky so and so you are aint you. Who are you to tell me to stop ignoring things or whats important? Whats important to you is not globally important to the human race.

America pissed off loads of Muslims and continues to do so. Some of the more radical Muslims decided it was payback time.


Isn't why it happened and what for the same thing? How about if you find out bush did it then were well on or way to knowing why, money and power. Prove the hijackers did it as they say they did and the reasons why are in the martyrdom videos and letters they recorded and wrote before the event.