Comments by "cchris874" (@cchris874) on "National Geographic" channel.

  1.  Dwingles420  Yeah, that's easy. It's called hubris. It proves to the viewer you have no interest in a serious discussion. You guys don't need any paid shills. You do a fine job on your own wrecking the truth mvt. People come on and see this stuff, and as you say, they see it for what it really is. Nuts. That's why the dying remnants of the truth mvt are relegated to playpen forums like Youtube. Only a few serious people bother to take you on.
    1
  2. So if you are really serious, I like to use this as a test question. Truthers typically say the cell phone calls were impossible. But that's an unscientific and erroneous conclusion. So we can test who really has the evidence on their side by who is employing the scientific approach to evidence. Are you up for the challenge? Here's a golden opportunity to show what truth finding is really all about.
    1
  3.  Dwingles420  I don't doubt you. But it shows a lack of scientific rigor. Sources: IEEE spectrum study showing cell calls connected at every stage of flight; telecom experts, one of whom I spoke with, who pointed out that back in 2001 most cell phones were analog, and these had a greater range and were more likely to connect back then. Your own limited personal experience is an example of anecdotal evidence, the least reliable form of evidence. You can't just cite one source and ignore all the others. There are also plenty of anecdotes well before 2001 of passengers receiving phone calls from the ground. So as I predicted, said truther/skeptic fails to employ the full scope of available sources, which is one of the main problems of 911 skeptics. They pick and choose only the sources - in this case yourself - that pleases them, and seem unaware or uninterested in all the others.
    1
  4.  @user-ic6kv7dj4x  "PRETTY sure" You're ahead of the curve. At least you acknowledge doubt, which cannot be said of so many others.
    1
  5.  @shillhunter2.047  No, science works by considering all the evidence, not just your personal experience. Like I said, paid shills are unnecessary. Each new post confirms that 9/11 truth cannot be taken seriously. You're doing this ALL BY YOURSELF.
    1
  6.  @MrYourfriendbutters  "You do realize that "science" is a method. " Why wouldn't I? Before going further, what's your take on the exchange I had about cell phones on 9/11?
    1
  7.  @mooneyes2k478  Don't think he can block me on this video. Notice how I lay out my evidence in a reasonable way, with reference to telecom experts and the largest study ever done on cell phone use in flight. And he disappears. That's 9/11 truth for you.
    1
  8. So what's you theory regarding flight 93?
    1
  9.  @Cookie-hg4xb  OK, what is your scenario?
    1
  10. Didn't you watch the end?
    1
  11. It was a blimp on an on overnight positioning flight.
    1
  12. One of the powerplants was found on the street at ground zero before the collapses.
    1
  13. Well I think the truth movement has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that explosives were needed, and that the likely motives of the government warranted bringing them down.
    1
  14.  @ShikataGaNai100  I would say probably not, but there are plenty here all right.
    1
  15. They probably never thought that.
    1
  16. There is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt this was a false flag, or that nukes were used. But, governments frequently take advantage of tragedy to further their power and greed. That's a far more likely explanation.
    1
  17. The BBC knew because they were told the collapse was expected. They reported it erroneously, because the media make these mistakes all the time. But of course, the media can never be trusted - except when it supports your side.
    1
  18. If so it was probably a blimp, just like this one.
    1
  19.  @supersnapp  On the subject of insulting one's intelligence I would vote for the bizarre idea that the government would hang its alleged plot on junk physics "that any 9th grade physics student could refute." Or decide to embrace impossible cell phone technology for an utterly useless crash in the middle of nowhere. Or that somehow the War on T and A and I depended on a bunch of heroes The government may be evil, but it's not completely insane or suicidal.
    1
  20. To those with unrigorous minds, perhaps.
    1
  21. you forgot Elvis
    1
  22. It does. It also often makes me heart broken that people are dying to bring babies into a dangerous world, which ensures such suffering will continue.
    1
  23.  @c.augustedupin2559  It's some sort of blend of metals that when sufficiently heated can become an incendiary, but not explosive per say. That's been my understanding.
    1
  24.  @c.augustedupin2559  Why are you asking me?
    1
  25.  @c.augustedupin2559  "oh I thought you were an expert" Did I say I was?
    1
  26.  @c.augustedupin2559  Go for it. Show me my know it all comments. You are exhibiting poor internet manners to exaggerate my knowledge of some aspects of thermite claims into an expert. It shows you are a bad sport, plain and simple. If you wanted to be serious and courteous, you would have left out the snide comments, and answered my question directly. I have no idea if thermite is used to cut steel. Do you have an example of it cutting steel?
    1
  27.  @c.augustedupin2559  Me truther? That's news to me. Like I said you have bad manners and poor sportsmanship. Me ranting? You're one of those people who love to invent enemies out of whole cloth. You still haven't answered my question. Maybe you don't know the answer yourself? Go for it Big Guy. Keep on your insult streak. That's your forte. Keep pretending I was ranting.
    1
  28.  @c.augustedupin2559  You are exactly what MoonEyes states. Trolling for trouble. Loving to provoke people. Your goal is to humiliate rather than to converse. How sad that is.
    1
  29.  @jasonhickerson2235  I already gave you the link in two forms. The link itself, and the key words to put into Google. Go back and look!!
    1
  30.  @jasonhickerson2235  Just wondering what kind of person wastes their time insulting anonymous people on Youtube. Get a life.
    1
  31.  @jasonhickerson2235  Well, the whole insultfest began when you said I needed to get my money back. I have stopped engaging in the insults. You and Duped are drawn to it like kids fighting in a sandbox. Maybe you should both start an insult club where you can call people liars day in and out. I hope you enjoy the debate, and please don't pretend I didn't give you the key words to bring it up.
    1
  32. Debunked what? That's what most people already think.
    1
  33.  @arjmcf  "The only plane part found was a engine that did not belong to the plane." Yet another lie from the truth movement. "There is a large PW4000 747 and 767 operator who also freely changes these engines between the types, along with the thrust rating plugs. On a 4000, the Boeing installations are identical and interchangable. The MD and Airbus have different interfaces. But, a 4052 is a 4056, is a 4060, is a 4062 with a simple plug change. Assuming all the internal components are configured for the thrust rating, which they most likely would be." And from wiki: "As a result of the Boeing 767 development overlapping with the 747-400's development, both aircraft can use the same three powerplants and are even interchangeable between the two aircraft models." The Boeing website itself clearly states this too. You can never trust the truth movements claims. Everything they say must be scrupulously fact checked. Or you can just employ common sense. Why would the government deliberately use a fake engine when it would be just as easy to plant the real thing? As to not finding plane parts inside the twin towers themselves, it's a valid question. But I'm pretty sure they did find some. Keep in mind, what other commercial airliners in history were ever subject to massive high speed disintegration and then crushed by hundreds of thousands of lbs of debris?
    1
  34. And the truth movement. Even the lying US government pales in comparison.
    1
  35. TWA flight 800 does indeed contain legitimate question marks. However the truth movement is totally bonkers. No comparison whatever.
    1
  36.  @JAdams-y4l  That answer is precisely in keeping with what one expects from truthers. No evidence, just crudely stereotyping everyone who doesn't agree with them and their 2nd rate research skills.
    1
  37. He took the credit, and he did deserve some. But in reality he was also to blame by not better preparing the city. The antiquated "handie-talkies" were "a scandal." They had 8 years after 1993 to get better radios that could be used between police and the FDNY. Giluini turned a blind eye to repeated calls to upgrade fire standards and building codes. He failed to prepare, failed to integrate the police/fire departments, repeatedly ignored advice WTC-7 was vulnerable to attack. Source: Grand Illusion by Barrett/Collins
    1
  38. Yes, just as the truth movement reminds one of the National Enquirer.
    1