Fake Faked Fake Photo???

c0rbin · 7th August 2006, 11:01 AM

This article references a 9/11 conspiracy theory blog manned by a person some of you may or may not have crossed pixels with named Killtown.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06218/711239-85.stm

Now I tried and tried and tried to get a strait answer from the Loose Change folks about the source of the photo referenced in the article.

If you get to Killtown's blog, the contention for the photo is that the angles and position of the "plume of smoke" is wrong based up on the official account of Flight 93's final moments.

When I first saw the photo, I said: "Wow, that looks fake to me." To which I was met with sarcastic LCers posting stuff like: "Ya think?" Which confused me.

Does the Government use this photo as evidence that Flight 93 crashed? Or is this some strawman piece of "evidence" used by CT to show that the crash was faked?

Here is the hair-pulling thread from LC:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...showtopic=8434

Thanks!

Edited for schpelling

Brainster · 7th August 2006, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by c0rbin

This article references a 9/11 conspiracy theory blog manned by a person some of you may or may not have crossed pixels with named Killtown.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06218/711239-85.stm

Now I tried and tried and tried to get a strait answer from the Loose Change folks about the source of the photo referenced in the article.

If you get to Killtown's blog, the contention for the photo is that the angles and position of the "plume of smoke" is wrong based up on the official account of Flight 93's final moments.

When I first saw the photo, I said: "Wow, that looks fake to me." To which I was met with sarcastic LCers posting stuff like: "Ya think?" Which confused me.

Does the Government use this photo as evidence that Flight 93 crashed? Or is this some strawman piece of "evidence" used by CT to show that the crash was faked?

Here is the hair-pulling thread from LC:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...showtopic=8434

Thanks!

Edited for schpelling

I gave Killtown kudos for that post because it appears that he did legitimate work lining up the shot and the location of the crash. Of course, if he's off by a few feet as to Val's location, or if the wind has moved the smoke significantly, that could explain the situation. But I looked at the post hard and could not see any other obvious mistakes.

Grundar · 7th August 2006, 11:41 AM

I used killtowns pictures to draw my own lines and you don't have to be of by more than a pixel or two to get a result that have the result of by about 5-10 degrees.

/Hans

defaultdotxbe · 7th August 2006, 02:01 PM

we had a thread going on the SLC forums about it

http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/...?showtopic=100

note killtown is careful not to say whether he thinks its a fake or not, but implies that either way it supports his CT

c0rbin · 7th August 2006, 02:06 PM

Does or has the government point to that photo as proof of anything?

If not, then the whole issue and those around it are moot. It is fake looking to me and if it is not held up by the gov as evidence of anything, how is it relevant? It is a huge strawman--or something--the conspiracy theorists use it as proof the government story doesn't jive and it could be a fake?

So confusing

defaultdotxbe · 7th August 2006, 03:12 PM

i think the CTers say the picture cant be from a plane crash, so it must be from a bomb, so if its real then a bomb went off in shanksville, not a plane crash, so the govt pulled of 9/11

if its fake, nothing happened in shanksville, so the govt pulled off 9/11

gumboot · 7th August 2006, 04:09 PM

Satellite photos from the crash site clearly show the shape of an airliner... that was how I first discovered it hit the ground virtually vertically.

The aircraft was clearly intact at impact. You can see the line of the wings, tail planes, and vertical stabiliser...

But of course... the government faked that too... didn't they?

-Andrew

defaultdotxbe · 7th August 2006, 04:27 PM

yeah, you really cant prove anythign to these people because they apply omnipotence to the govt, so it can do anything it wants

LTC8K6 · 7th August 2006, 07:45 PM

The plume being "too big" could simply be perspective compression from a zoom lens. The truck is the same distance from the barn in these two photos.

http://www.kevinwilley.com/images/ed...hoto/050MM.JPG

http://www.kevinwilley.com/images/ed...hoto/135MM.JPG

gumboot · 7th August 2006, 09:46 PM

I've started doing my own analysis, using basic photographic interpretation techniques.

The techniques used in the blogs are pretty sound, and seem convincing. They do make one mistake, however.

The first step in interpreting a photo onto a map is determing the start point. They have made an assumption, but even an incorrect placement of a meter or so can have enormous ramifications over the 1.6 miles from the woman's house to the crash site.

Just determining the starting point is proving to be very difficult in this scenario, and without establishing that everything else is purely estimate.

-Andrew

gumboot · 7th August 2006, 11:54 PM

Right.

I've finished.

Now, a few things to bear in mind. The sound of the crash would not have reached Val until almost 8 seconds after the event occured. She claims it was the sound of the crash that alerted her.

Second, in the photograph the cloud of smoke is almost detached from the ground. This means the initial fuel burn is stopping. So some time has passed between the crash and the photo being taken.

Now, as for the position of the mushroom. It is centred roughtly 200m downwind of the impact site, with a widest spread of 600m.

The mistake they have made is to judge the location and size by the maximum width of the smoke cloud. This is a mistake. Once in the sky, the smoke will spread rapidly over a large area - comparative with the WTC fires, for example, the UA 93 mushroom cloud is very small.

They should be calculating the location by the narrow pillar of smoke rising behind what they call the "white house" near the centre of the picture. This column is a fraction of the size of the overall cloud, but more importantly it is not centred. This is important.

What you discover is you're looking at a base closer to 60m wide, centred less than 200m downwind of the impact site, in the direction of the local wind (and about where the engine was found...).

Now, assuming a vertical impact, debris won't spread far, and the fireball is going to rise up vertically from the impact point (no lateral momentum).

If we factor in the reported wind speed of about 10 MPH, the cloud would be position as it is in the photo about 40 seconds after the impact, or about 32 seconds after Val heard the noise.

In this 40 second period the 60m across burn area poured black smoke into the sky which spread to a maximum width of 600m.

Sounds about right to me.

-Andrew

c0rbin · 8th August 2006, 07:25 AM

Interesting.

I just discounted that picture as proof of anything 'cause it looked so fake.

Thanks for the time!

Scott Sommers · Today, 07:13 AM

I just found this really interesting post. It seems related to some of the other posts that are going on now. Maybe some of the Truther people here could contact this Kiltown person and get some of his information. It seems he's a little more informed than some of the current people talking about this 9/11 conspiracy thing.

WTC Dust · Today, 11:39 AM

I know Killtown well. I was allowed on his forums for a few years, but when I started coming out against this type of "fakery" evidence, he banned me from the site. There is a line of thought supported by close associates of mine that says that the videos of 9/11 were faked, meaning "altered post-production" ie "edited". I had to make a break with some of these people because I refused to support the "everything is faked" theory. There is so much evidence out there, and it all tells the same story. None of the important stuff is faked, in my opinion. Killtown doesn't hate me. We talk. He just didn't want to hear me speaking out against TV Video Fakery and other types of Fakery theory.

Dash80 · Today, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by WTC Dust

I know Killtown well. I was allowed on his forums for a few years, but when I started coming out against this type of "fakery" evidence, he banned me from the site. There is a line of thought supported by close associates of mine that says that the videos of 9/11 were faked, meaning "altered post-production" ie "edited". I had to make a break with some of these people because I refused to support the "everything is faked" theory. There is so much evidence out there, and it all tells the same story. None of the important stuff is faked, in my opinion. Killtown doesn't hate me. We talk. He just didn't want to hear me speaking out against TV Video Fakery and other types of Fakery theory.

Killtown is a douche, who pretty much stalked the woman who took the photo.

Flight 93 crashed near Shanksville, people saw it crash, the plume is consistent with a plane crash. 95% of the aircraft was recovered and all passengers and crew were indentified.

No fakery at all.

swright777 · Today, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by WTC Dust

...
There is so much evidence out there, and it all tells the same story.
...

Yep. And the story the evidence tells doesn't even have a passing acquaintance with the drivel that you've been spewing.

Skibum · Today, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by WTC Dust

I know Killtown well. I was allowed on his forums for a few years, but when I started coming out against this type of "fakery" evidence, he banned me from the site. There is a line of thought supported by close associates of mine that says that the videos of 9/11 were faked, meaning "altered post-production" ie "edited". I had to make a break with some of these people because I refused to support the "everything is faked" theory. There is so much evidence out there, and it all tells the same story. None of the important stuff is faked, in my opinion. Killtown doesn't hate me. We talk. He just didn't want to hear me speaking out against TV Video Fakery and other types of Fakery theory.

Sounds like you crazy people are trying to out crazy each other, which hurts each others feelings . Who would want to be right when you can be king/queen of the loony bin.

fuelair · Today, 02:33 PM

The preferred name for the POS is Killclown. Per 4 or 5 years back.

AAAAAAAAAGH!!!!!!!!ZOMBIE THREAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WTC Dust · Today, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by Dash80

Killtown is a douche, who pretty much stalked the woman who took the photo.

Flight 93 crashed near Shanksville, people saw it crash, the plume is consistent with a plane crash. 95% of the aircraft was recovered and all passengers and crew were indentified.

No fakery at all.

Yeah, I thought the End of Serenity was a bad move. It's not a faked photograph! It's a genuine photograph of a faked event. Blaming Val, and actually the whole fakery thing is bogus. If you read carefully what these people are saying, including Killtown, is that ALL of the evidence is fake, when it isn't.

WTC Dust · Today, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by swright777

Yep. And the story the evidence tells doesn't even have a passing acquaintance with the drivel that you've been spewing.

Drivel? DRIVEL????? Kind of an old fashioned word, drivel.

WTC Dust · Today, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by Skibum

Sounds like you crazy people are trying to out crazy each other, which hurts each others feelings . Who would want to be right when you can be king/queen of the loony bin.

Just remember: ALL OF THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY THEORIES ARE WRONG, EXCEPT ONE

This includes what I've been calling the hijack conspiracy theory. Even if you believe it, it's still a theory about a conspiracy.

WTC Dust · Today, 04:27 PM

Or maybe all of them are wrong. Maybe nobody got it right. But it certainly wasn't planes plus bombs, if you catch my drift.

Dash80 · Today, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by WTC Dust

Yeah, I thought the End of Serenity was a bad move. It's not a faked photograph! It's a genuine photograph of a faked event. Blaming Val, and actually the whole fakery thing is bogus. If you read carefully what these people are saying, including Killtown, is that ALL of the evidence is fake, when it isn't.

No faked event either.

Skibum · Today, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by WTC Dust

Just remember: ALL OF THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY THEORIES ARE WRONG, EXCEPT ONE

This includes what I've been calling the hijack conspiracy theory. Even if you believe it, it's still a theory about a conspiracy.

Feel free to provide a more comprehensive theory that is backed up by actual evidence.

Skibum · Today, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by WTC Dust

Or maybe all of them are wrong. Maybe nobody got it right. But it certainly wasn't planes plus bombs, if you catch my drift.

You are correct. It was not planes plus bombs.

7th August 2006, 11:01 AM	#1
c0rbin Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,806	Fake Faked Fake Photo??? This article references a 9/11 conspiracy theory blog manned by a person some of you may or may not have crossed pixels with named Killtown. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06218/711239-85.stm Now I tried and tried and tried to get a strait answer from the Loose Change folks about the source of the photo referenced in the article. If you get to Killtown's blog, the contention for the photo is that the angles and position of the "plume of smoke" is wrong based up on the official account of Flight 93's final moments. When I first saw the photo, I said: "Wow, that looks fake to me." To which I was met with sarcastic LCers posting stuff like: "Ya think?" Which confused me. Does the Government use this photo as evidence that Flight 93 crashed? Or is this some strawman piece of "evidence" used by CT to show that the crash was faked? Here is the hair-pulling thread from LC: http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...showtopic=8434 Thanks! Edited for schpelling
c0rbin Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,806	__________________ By convention there is color, By convention sweetness, By convention bitterness, But in reality there are atoms and space. --Democritus (c. 400 BCE) Last edited by c0rbin; 7th August 2006 at 11:03 AM.

7th August 2006, 11:13 AM	#2
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,426	Originally Posted by c0rbin This article references a 9/11 conspiracy theory blog manned by a person some of you may or may not have crossed pixels with named Killtown. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06218/711239-85.stm Now I tried and tried and tried to get a strait answer from the Loose Change folks about the source of the photo referenced in the article. If you get to Killtown's blog, the contention for the photo is that the angles and position of the "plume of smoke" is wrong based up on the official account of Flight 93's final moments. When I first saw the photo, I said: "Wow, that looks fake to me." To which I was met with sarcastic LCers posting stuff like: "Ya think?" Which confused me. Does the Government use this photo as evidence that Flight 93 crashed? Or is this some strawman piece of "evidence" used by CT to show that the crash was faked? Here is the hair-pulling thread from LC: http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...showtopic=8434 Thanks! Edited for schpelling I gave Killtown kudos for that post because it appears that he did legitimate work lining up the shot and the location of the crash. Of course, if he's off by a few feet as to Val's location, or if the wind has moved the smoke significantly, that could explain the situation. But I looked at the post hard and could not see any other obvious mistakes.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

7th August 2006, 02:06 PM	#5
c0rbin Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,806	Does or has the government point to that photo as proof of anything? If not, then the whole issue and those around it are moot. It is fake looking to me and if it is not held up by the gov as evidence of anything, how is it relevant? It is a huge strawman--or something--the conspiracy theorists use it as proof the government story doesn't jive and it could be a fake? So confusing
c0rbin Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,806	__________________ By convention there is color, By convention sweetness, By convention bitterness, But in reality there are atoms and space. --Democritus (c. 400 BCE)

7th August 2006, 04:09 PM	#7
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,121	Satellite photos from the crash site clearly show the shape of an airliner... that was how I first discovered it hit the ground virtually vertically. The aircraft was clearly intact at impact. You can see the line of the wings, tail planes, and vertical stabiliser... But of course... the government faked that too... didn't they? -Andrew
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

7th August 2006, 07:45 PM	#9
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,657	The plume being "too big" could simply be perspective compression from a zoom lens. The truck is the same distance from the barn in these two photos. http://www.kevinwilley.com/images/ed...hoto/050MM.JPG http://www.kevinwilley.com/images/ed...hoto/135MM.JPG
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

7th August 2006, 11:41 AM	#3
Grundar Scholar Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Sweden Posts: 82	I used killtowns pictures to draw my own lines and you don't have to be of by more than a pixel or two to get a result that have the result of by about 5-10 degrees. /Hans

7th August 2006, 02:01 PM	#4
defaultdotxbe Drunken Shikigami Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Dark Side of the Sun Posts: 7,482	we had a thread going on the SLC forums about it http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/...?showtopic=100 note killtown is careful not to say whether he thinks its a fake or not, but implies that either way it supports his CT

7th August 2006, 03:12 PM	#6
defaultdotxbe Drunken Shikigami Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Dark Side of the Sun Posts: 7,482	i think the CTers say the picture cant be from a plane crash, so it must be from a bomb, so if its real then a bomb went off in shanksville, not a plane crash, so the govt pulled of 9/11 if its fake, nothing happened in shanksville, so the govt pulled off 9/11

7th August 2006, 04:27 PM	#8
defaultdotxbe Drunken Shikigami Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Dark Side of the Sun Posts: 7,482	yeah, you really cant prove anythign to these people because they apply omnipotence to the govt, so it can do anything it wants

7th August 2006, 09:46 PM	#10
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,121	I've started doing my own analysis, using basic photographic interpretation techniques. The techniques used in the blogs are pretty sound, and seem convincing. They do make one mistake, however. The first step in interpreting a photo onto a map is determing the start point. They have made an assumption, but even an incorrect placement of a meter or so can have enormous ramifications over the 1.6 miles from the woman's house to the crash site. Just determining the starting point is proving to be very difficult in this scenario, and without establishing that everything else is purely estimate. -Andrew
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

7th August 2006, 11:54 PM	#11
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,121	Right. I've finished. Now, a few things to bear in mind. The sound of the crash would not have reached Val until almost 8 seconds after the event occured. She claims it was the sound of the crash that alerted her. Second, in the photograph the cloud of smoke is almost detached from the ground. This means the initial fuel burn is stopping. So some time has passed between the crash and the photo being taken. Now, as for the position of the mushroom. It is centred roughtly 200m downwind of the impact site, with a widest spread of 600m. The mistake they have made is to judge the location and size by the maximum width of the smoke cloud. This is a mistake. Once in the sky, the smoke will spread rapidly over a large area - comparative with the WTC fires, for example, the UA 93 mushroom cloud is very small. They should be calculating the location by the narrow pillar of smoke rising behind what they call the "white house" near the centre of the picture. This column is a fraction of the size of the overall cloud, but more importantly it is not centred. This is important. What you discover is you're looking at a base closer to 60m wide, centred less than 200m downwind of the impact site, in the direction of the local wind (and about where the engine was found...). Now, assuming a vertical impact, debris won't spread far, and the fireball is going to rise up vertically from the impact point (no lateral momentum). If we factor in the reported wind speed of about 10 MPH, the cloud would be position as it is in the photo about 40 seconds after the impact, or about 32 seconds after Val heard the noise. In this 40 second period the 60m across burn area poured black smoke into the sky which spread to a maximum width of 600m. Sounds about right to me. -Andrew
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

8th August 2006, 07:25 AM	#12
c0rbin Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,806	Interesting. I just discounted that picture as proof of anything 'cause it looked so fake. Thanks for the time!
c0rbin Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,806	__________________ By convention there is color, By convention sweetness, By convention bitterness, But in reality there are atoms and space. --Democritus (c. 400 BCE)

Today, 07:13 AM	#13
Scott Sommers Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 3,642	I just found this really interesting post. It seems related to some of the other posts that are going on now. Maybe some of the Truther people here could contact this Kiltown person and get some of his information. It seems he's a little more informed than some of the current people talking about this 9/11 conspiracy thing.
	__________________ for the original publication Who Still Believes in 9/11 Conspiracies? for Google Books Becoming Taiwan: From Colonialism to Democracy

Today, 11:39 AM	#14
WTC Dust Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Battery Park City Posts: 3,346	I know Killtown well. I was allowed on his forums for a few years, but when I started coming out against this type of "fakery" evidence, he banned me from the site. There is a line of thought supported by close associates of mine that says that the videos of 9/11 were faked, meaning "altered post-production" ie "edited". I had to make a break with some of these people because I refused to support the "everything is faked" theory. There is so much evidence out there, and it all tells the same story. None of the important stuff is faked, in my opinion. Killtown doesn't hate me. We talk. He just didn't want to hear me speaking out against TV Video Fakery and other types of Fakery theory.
	__________________ The World Trade Center did not collapse. It was turned into dust while it was standing there, and then the dust fell to the ground.

Today, 11:46 AM	#15
Dash80 Blitzkrieg Bop Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Home Sweet Home Posts: 1,556	Originally Posted by WTC Dust I know Killtown well. I was allowed on his forums for a few years, but when I started coming out against this type of "fakery" evidence, he banned me from the site. There is a line of thought supported by close associates of mine that says that the videos of 9/11 were faked, meaning "altered post-production" ie "edited". I had to make a break with some of these people because I refused to support the "everything is faked" theory. There is so much evidence out there, and it all tells the same story. None of the important stuff is faked, in my opinion. Killtown doesn't hate me. We talk. He just didn't want to hear me speaking out against TV Video Fakery and other types of Fakery theory. Killtown is a douche, who pretty much stalked the woman who took the photo. Flight 93 crashed near Shanksville, people saw it crash, the plume is consistent with a plane crash. 95% of the aircraft was recovered and all passengers and crew were indentified. No fakery at all.
	__________________ I see that the No-Planers still travel Air Elastic-Band with their fleet of innovative rubber Boeings.

Today, 11:47 AM	#16
swright777 Muse Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Pennsylvania, USA Posts: 574	Originally Posted by WTC Dust ... There is so much evidence out there, and it all tells the same story. ... Yep. And the story the evidence tells doesn't even have a passing acquaintance with the drivel that you've been spewing.

Today, 01:25 PM	#17
Skibum Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Fredericksburg, Virginia Posts: 1,186	Originally Posted by WTC Dust I know Killtown well. I was allowed on his forums for a few years, but when I started coming out against this type of "fakery" evidence, he banned me from the site. There is a line of thought supported by close associates of mine that says that the videos of 9/11 were faked, meaning "altered post-production" ie "edited". I had to make a break with some of these people because I refused to support the "everything is faked" theory. There is so much evidence out there, and it all tells the same story. None of the important stuff is faked, in my opinion. Killtown doesn't hate me. We talk. He just didn't want to hear me speaking out against TV Video Fakery and other types of Fakery theory. Sounds like you crazy people are trying to out crazy each other, which hurts each others feelings . Who would want to be right when you can be king/queen of the loony bin.

Today, 02:33 PM	#18
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,931	The preferred name for the POS is Killclown. Per 4 or 5 years back. AAAAAAAAAGH!!!!!!!!ZOMBIE THREAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,931	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

Today, 04:23 PM	#19
WTC Dust Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Battery Park City Posts: 3,346	Originally Posted by Dash80 Killtown is a douche, who pretty much stalked the woman who took the photo. Flight 93 crashed near Shanksville, people saw it crash, the plume is consistent with a plane crash. 95% of the aircraft was recovered and all passengers and crew were indentified. No fakery at all. Yeah, I thought the End of Serenity was a bad move. It's not a faked photograph! It's a genuine photograph of a faked event. Blaming Val, and actually the whole fakery thing is bogus. If you read carefully what these people are saying, including Killtown, is that ALL of the evidence is fake, when it isn't.
	__________________ The World Trade Center did not collapse. It was turned into dust while it was standing there, and then the dust fell to the ground.

Today, 04:24 PM	#20
WTC Dust Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Battery Park City Posts: 3,346	Originally Posted by swright777 Yep. And the story the evidence tells doesn't even have a passing acquaintance with the drivel that you've been spewing. Drivel? DRIVEL????? Kind of an old fashioned word, drivel.
	__________________ The World Trade Center did not collapse. It was turned into dust while it was standing there, and then the dust fell to the ground.

Today, 04:25 PM	#21
WTC Dust Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Battery Park City Posts: 3,346	Originally Posted by Skibum Sounds like you crazy people are trying to out crazy each other, which hurts each others feelings . Who would want to be right when you can be king/queen of the loony bin. Just remember: ALL OF THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY THEORIES ARE WRONG, EXCEPT ONE This includes what I've been calling the hijack conspiracy theory. Even if you believe it, it's still a theory about a conspiracy.
	__________________ The World Trade Center did not collapse. It was turned into dust while it was standing there, and then the dust fell to the ground.

Today, 04:27 PM	#22
WTC Dust Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Battery Park City Posts: 3,346	Or maybe all of them are wrong. Maybe nobody got it right. But it certainly wasn't planes plus bombs, if you catch my drift.
	__________________ The World Trade Center did not collapse. It was turned into dust while it was standing there, and then the dust fell to the ground.

Today, 04:37 PM	#23
Dash80 Blitzkrieg Bop Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Home Sweet Home Posts: 1,556	Originally Posted by WTC Dust Yeah, I thought the End of Serenity was a bad move. It's not a faked photograph! It's a genuine photograph of a faked event. Blaming Val, and actually the whole fakery thing is bogus. If you read carefully what these people are saying, including Killtown, is that ALL of the evidence is fake, when it isn't. No faked event either.
	__________________ I see that the No-Planers still travel Air Elastic-Band with their fleet of innovative rubber Boeings.

Today, 05:51 PM	#24
Skibum Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Fredericksburg, Virginia Posts: 1,186	Originally Posted by WTC Dust Just remember: ALL OF THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY THEORIES ARE WRONG, EXCEPT ONE This includes what I've been calling the hijack conspiracy theory. Even if you believe it, it's still a theory about a conspiracy. Feel free to provide a more comprehensive theory that is backed up by actual evidence.

Today, 05:52 PM	#25
Skibum Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Fredericksburg, Virginia Posts: 1,186	Originally Posted by WTC Dust Or maybe all of them are wrong. Maybe nobody got it right. But it certainly wasn't planes plus bombs, if you catch my drift. You are correct. It was not planes plus bombs.