Comments by "cchris874" (@cchris874) on "Joe Rogan on Mark Wahlberg's 9-11 Comments" video.

  1. The thing that makes Youtube comments so endearing is you never need to worry about proof. Just say whatever you want, unchecked by reality.
    3
  2. In case you were wondering, they outnumber you guys by a huge margin.
    2
  3. But they weren't trying to.
    2
  4. Doesn't make sense. If it were shot down, the government would have taken the credit immediately. They were stung by the criticism they were incompetent that day. This is another delicious example of what makes 911 truth so incoherent. On the one hand the government wants to destroy buildings. But then it does an about face and wants a plane shot down. And THEN it doesn't want to admit they prevented an attack.
    1
  5.  @BrainChild711  The engines were not shot out - one of them was dug out of the crater, so at most we have just one engine found at a distance. , the DFDR indicates no parameters consistent with shoot down, no one actually witnessed a shootdown. Now we can speculate there's some possibility of this, but nothing resembling a proof.
    1
  6. Correct, no proof of faked crashes and lying relatives and fantasy landings in Cleveland. Couldn't agree more.
    1
  7. "Pull it" doesn't mean controlled demolition. . .. . Next.
    1
  8. You're right, gravity does. As it does in every controlled demolition too. Ask any demolition expert.
    1
  9.  @Matthew075  Where did you get the mistaken idea steel could not be weekend by the fire? Demolition experts do NOT agree. The truth mat's own favorite demo expert witness, Danny Jowenko, is on record agreeing that the twin towers did not require explosives. Explosions are to be expected: elevators crashed to the floor, lots of things can explode, as they have in other office fires. The term "pulled" is not a term associated with controlled demolition with explosives. You better go on and on because right now your score is zero. Do some more research.
    1
  10.  @Matthew075  Well I have a different view of the facts. As to Danny Jowenko, if you consider him to be a reliable witness, then you should know he disagrees with you about the twin towers.
    1
  11. Ya, but that evidence is unreliable. Besides, if it was shot down, the government would by dying to take the credit. They were stung by the charges they failed to stop a single attack.
    1
  12.  @cwbadmin  Problems: First off, no one that we know of actually saw an object strike the plane, so we don't have such a witness. OK, so if I've missed that, provide a link, but I've studied this pretty carefully. 2nd, the only debris found 8 miles away was downwind of the impact, and only light stuff carried by breeze - it came from the crash site. A shoot down would mean debris found west of the impact. There was no such debris. 3rd, going with the hero story, I think that's play thinking. Completely unnecessary and irrelevant. Plus, the government started saying no shoot down by that afternoon. Had evidence been found later , that would have been an embarrassment. And the NTSB doesn't go around doctoring black boxes - unless you think there was a Grand Conspiracy by the government after all.
    1