Comments by "cchris874" (@cchris874) on "9/11 audio recordings offer dramatic timeline" video.

  1. Most of us figured it out 20 years ago. All it took were box cutters. And you're still struggling to figure it out some 2o years on? That's quite sad actually.
    4
  2.  @scottlavalle  Better a professor than not being able to think outside the conspiracy box. Tell us what is so hard to believe about box cutters getting on to planes in 2001. Do you really lack that elementary level of imagination?
    4
  3. Because you'll believe anything. Roth has zero credibility.
    3
  4.  @abdul-qaderhaimour8117  Anyone who claims to have done so many thousands of ours of research, yet still thinks many of the hijackers were still alive, demonstrates their poor research skills.
    3
  5.  @abdul-qaderhaimour8117  "Scepticism from 9-11 researchers Doubts about Roth's motivations have proliferated, especially in light of her aggressive approach to questions about her background. In interviews, Roth makes little or no mention of other 911 research or researchers, has quick to take offence at people's scepticism of her story, and regularly keen to promote her books.[4] She has attempted to make legal threats to people (including this website) in the 9-11 Truth movement. 2015 - January 2016 The Nautral News story of December 2015 Members of the 9/11 Truth movement who have publicly expressed doubts about her include: Apr 2015: Andrew Johnson[4] Sep 2015: James H. Fetzer, after she strongly criticised him for writing that she that "she did not have everything right".[5][6] Oct 2015: S, Johnson of Natural News who removed the Rebekah Roth Show and charged "Observing her behavior, we came to find that she's an expert in infiltration and provocateur-type operations, getting groups of people to turn on each other and causing chaos inside the truth movement." [7] Dec 2015: Kurt Haskell remarked upon the similarity between Rebekah Roth's voice and that of one "Monika Gainor" who made a video selling health products.[8][9][10][11] Jan 2016: James Perloff[9][12] 2017 After criticism in 2016 for using a corrupted transcription of the tape recording of Betty Ong, Rebekah Roth has continued to do so.[3] Withholding evidence Rebekah Roth regularly avoids particular questions in her interviews, directing listeners to buy her book if they wish to know more. One commentator remarked in 2017 about this habit of hers: " ----------------------- “I do have a problem with such persons as Rebekah Roth who claims to have real expert witnesses looking at real evidence, yet this real evidence is withheld, and we are directed to read her fictional account so that we can experience her emotional reactions when this supposed evidence was reviewed by these supposed experts. The events on 9/11 represented a crime scene, and the withholding of real evidence and the testimony of real witnesses is tantamount to perverting the course of justice. Why should we respect the anecdotal assertions of Rebekah Roth who, for example, claims that some Pentagon guy thinks she should testify before a Congressional Hearing, which may never come to pass in reality? Whatever documentation she has which backs up her theories should be put out in public view. It is outrageous when the public is told, “buy my book” and we are expected to distinguish between fiction and reality, based on what? Hearsay which may represent the stories of a fictitious witness?” Jacquelyn Weaver (2017-05-20) [13]
    2
  6. Your cousin's death is very sad. But how does that prove flight 93 was shot down?
    2
  7. No one ever said that.
    2
  8. Because most people, despite all their sheep-like tendencies, are actually better at the basics of common sense than the 911 skeptics. While some Grand Conspiracies may well be true, most of these "conspiracy types" are rarely content with just one conspiracy. To them every event is a false flag. This says much more about the temperament of the person making the claims, than the event itself. A very good discussion of this can be found in Jonathan Kay's: Among the Truthers.
    2
  9.  @scottlavalle  No you don't, don't try playing physics expert with me. You well know there are two sides to the physics. One side, the conspiracy side, refuses to this day to publish their results in a science journal. The other, the consensus of the worldwide structural engineering community, is this was a gravity collapse, and which has been confirmed by a several peer review articles. But either way, the science is complex. You may have deluded yourself into thinking it's easy. If it were this easy to refute, the government would not have been stupid enough to embrace it. This is the death knell for so many conspiracy theorists. They imagine themselves uniquely gifted at scientific revelation. The rest of us, the scientific community at large, and the government, are blitheringly stupid idiots. Such arrogance is typical of the conspiracy mindset. So it's very easy to do. Submit a science article to a science journal (Oh no! he says, the whole scientific community is in on the conspiracy!) Nothing is stopping you. Then report back to us.
    2
  10. inside your imagination
    1
  11.  @shazianawaz9588  Most people recognize a crackpot when they see one.
    1
  12. I've heard this claim before, but I believe no one has ever produced a proof there were 500 cameras. Can you point me to an official document or documentation of the 500 cameras?
    1
  13. Which is why we didn't attack ourselves.
    1
  14.  @garryshoker6637  Don't worry, just another unrigorous mind who has poor judgement, doesn't understand the nature of evidence, and cannot grasp how the real world works.
    1
  15. Nope, wrong.
    1
  16. Who said no one saw them?
    1
  17.  @hannahjames3180  But did anyone have to see them to put the obvious pieces of the puzzle together? His voice, as we see above, was heard. It had a distinct accent. That alone shows someone else had enterted the cockpit.
    1
  18. That sounds so unprofessional of those teachers. I wasn't there, and maybe these teachers couldn't help themselves. But I would have thought they would make an effort not to panic and scare young children!
    1
  19. And notice how everyone recognized we were essentially at war with terrorists by 9:02am. Another proof the demolition of three skyscrapers was massive overkill and unnecessary for the War on Terror. Yet another one of the gaping theoretical flaws upon which 911 truth rests.
    1
  20. And the pop-up-ads known as 911 truth. You cannot escape them.
    1
  21.  @DougieDonuts457  If that's true I stand corrected.
    1
  22.  @TheLostStars  It speaks again to the fact the US was neither prepared for nor watching for an attack originating in domestic airspace.
    1
  23. It landed in Cleveland. Didn't you know?
    1
  24. Can't believe everything you hear.
    1
  25.  @davidthompson8625  Because it's a self serving statement. Everyone fancies themselves more intelligent and less gullible than most. Rather than just go by what one senses, why not do real truth digging. What I personally find is that 911 skeptics often do not do what I would call "thinking like a scientist." A great example of that concerns the cell phone calls. So here's a test. Have you studied the cell call issue? And have you erroneously concluded, like many skeptics, that the calls were impossible? If so we can go over this and determine why it's erroneous. If you'd care to that is. That's just one example of many where truthers continually get it wrong. cheers
    1
  26.  @trendynow1369  Well anything's possible, but would it make any logical sense for Silverstein to come on national TV and blurt out the plot? This is bordering on the absurd, a common feature of 911 "skeptical" thinking I have found. In addition, to continue where Tim left off, in the demolition industry "pulled" is a term that refers to pulling down the remains of a building. It's not a term that has anything to do with explosives. Finally, let's look at context. Silverstein said the decision was made to pull because of such loss of life. This makes sense in terms of getting everyone away from a building that was no longer safe to be in. It makes no sense as a demolition term. When was the last time you heard of a demolition company that blew up a building in order to save lives? Discuss.
    1
  27.  Daniel Treadwell  You can refute 9/11 truth's main thesis in 2 seconds. Any of the following will do: -By 9:37am, all Americans were united in belief we were at war with terrorists. No demolitions required. -Flight 93 served no conceivably useful purpose, as shown by the fact the outcome would have been the same. -If Iraqi oil was the goal, why were the hijackers made out as Saudis? Any of these three points says more than the common claims of 911 skeptics.
    1
  28.  Monica Palmer  Sure they were. The evidence is overwhelming. By contrast the evidence they weren't is close to zero.
    1
  29.  @vysakhmadhu3937  You may be incorrectly reading the intent of the original post. It might just be an innocent question, to which the answer is no. Pearl Harbor is one obvious example.
    1
  30. In the history of hijacking until 9/11, the norm was to "just sit there." With alleged armed hijackers, why would this flight have been any different?
    1