Comments by "cchris874" (@cchris874) on "" video.

  1. twoofer bot.
    5
  2. !!!!! is not evidence.
    5
  3. Because you'll believe anything.
    4
  4. A theory which has been debunked ad nauseum and which makes no sense even if it were present.
    3
  5. And Elvis.
    2
  6. Not to mention Elvis.
    2
  7. And why no mention of Elvis?
    2
  8. Elvis confirmed it.
    2
  9.  @UnFpredik  samkhoury is asking about building 7. The airplane did not hit building 7. But if you are talking about towers 1 ans 2, the collapses did indeed start precisely where the planes hit. So your post makes no sense.
    2
  10.  @Reporter360Grad  Yes there is a picture, the engine (obviously shorn of outer parts) came to rest at the corner of Murray and Church streets. So are you asking, as many people do, how is it possible all of the planes were able to penetrate through steel; and therefore physics dictates at least some of the aircraft structure ought to have fallen to the ground rather than than penetrate through the building? That's a good question, and I've looked into it myself. Part of the answer is that the steel beams themselves need not have been broken, as the physics involved is not just determined by the fact aluminum is much weaker than steel. The physics is over my head to an extent, but it's complicated, and depends on the speed. For example there's a wonderful video showing a ping pong ball making a clean hole through a ping pong paddle even though the wood is obviously much denser. It was propelled at very high speed. In fact, water itself can cut through steel, and there's a video showing that too. At the very least it shows you cannot prove "aluminum cannot cut through steel" all. by itself without factoring in factor in the speed, the density and the strength of the materiasl. Further, the steel beams were held together by much weaker joists, which again would refute the claim aluminum had to literally cut through steel for all of the structure to penetrate the facade.
    2
  11. In consultation with Elvis.
    2
  12. Sure do. In fact a powerplant expert identified the engine part pictured at the Pentagon. Pics of United 93's black boxes have been online for decades now. A huge part of an engine was found at Ground Zero before the collapses.
    2
  13. No proof. So why even bother posting.
    2
  14. Why ask when the truthers are everywhere, like the invasion of the body snatchers, or swarms of mosquitos from which there is no escape. The fact is, as a whole the truth movement has created one of the most shockingly stu-id set of theories ever invented. Let's stick with the more sensible ones.
    2
  15. And why would anyone think to blow up a skyscraper that killed nobody 7 hours later? But truthers don't seem as interested in engaging that question. The fact is, the collapse was expected, which is why they pulled everyone away hours before.
    2
  16. Publish your evidence in a science journal. Apparently the folks in the truth movement are too scared to do so.
    1
  17. So what's you theory regarding flight 93?
    1
  18. One of the powerplants was found on the street at ground zero before the collapses.
    1
  19. They probably never thought that.
    1
  20. 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
  21. To those with unrigorous minds, perhaps.
    1
  22. you forgot Elvis
    1
  23.  @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
  24. And the truth movement. Even the lying US government pales in comparison.
    1
  25. TWA flight 800 does indeed contain legitimate question marks. However the truth movement is totally bonkers. No comparison whatever.
    1
  26.  @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
  27. Yes, just as the truth movement reminds one of the National Enquirer.
    1