Debunking the Debunkery Jason Bermas & September Clues 9/11:
The video skips showing how the supposed nose of the plane is just an expulsion of debris.
Nose out hoax
9/11 Myths - Further debunking of the 9/11 TV Fakery 'nose out' claim
Excerpt:
In conclusion, these images demonstrate that what is seen exiting the South Tower is not a CGI plane, but is quite clearly debris being expelled from the building, followed by a huge explosion.
The video then goes on to ask the question "Why no Shiney planes?" Well the way the shadows were that day the planes don't look shiny, other videos, including amateur footage, all have a plane in them. So here is a better question posed by Jason, "Why is there no footage showing a building exploding without a plane hitting it?" Only one such video has been touted as such, but it it is simply a matter of low-resolution video. Skip to 4:08 in the following video to see for yourself; the whole video is worth watching though.
It is also asked, "Wheres the debris?" Answer: seen flying out of the building in the "nose out" rebuttal, in the picture in my video of part of the fuselage on the roof of Building 5, in the picture in my video of a piece of landing gear on a building three blocks north of the WTC, and in a picture in my video of a piece of a Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D engine found on Church Street three blocks north of the WTC, which you show with the caption, "And what exactly is this find?"
There are good empirical arguments that this engine piece is as stated, but the argument that the engine is the wrong type makes no sense on an a priori basis as well. As poster "Edx" asked on the JREF forum, "...Why do you think these conspirators would intentionally plant an engine that wasn't from a Boeing 767 in the streets in order to fake evidence that a Boeing 767 crashed .... especially when they know people will take pictures of it and then someone could just stand up and say that it couldn't be from that plane?"
And as Jim Hoffman points out at 911research.wtc7.net, "The majority of Flight 175 and the vast majority of Flight 11 remains were trapped in the towers."
The rebuttal video then states, "Folks did say they had heard an explosion alright.. But no one talked about the engine noise, why is that." This point and others are debunked in this video by blog contributor Adam Taylor:
Related:
Debunking "September Clues" and "No Plane" Theories
The video skips showing how the supposed nose of the plane is just an expulsion of debris.
Nose out hoax
9/11 Myths - Further debunking of the 9/11 TV Fakery 'nose out' claim
Excerpt:
When 3 of the stills are placed together, it is manifestly clear that this is not one seamless animation of a plane nose:
And finally, when the stills are turned into an animation, we can witness the shape changes in action:
In conclusion, these images demonstrate that what is seen exiting the South Tower is not a CGI plane, but is quite clearly debris being expelled from the building, followed by a huge explosion.
The video then goes on to ask the question "Why no Shiney planes?" Well the way the shadows were that day the planes don't look shiny, other videos, including amateur footage, all have a plane in them. So here is a better question posed by Jason, "Why is there no footage showing a building exploding without a plane hitting it?" Only one such video has been touted as such, but it it is simply a matter of low-resolution video. Skip to 4:08 in the following video to see for yourself; the whole video is worth watching though.
It is also asked, "Wheres the debris?" Answer: seen flying out of the building in the "nose out" rebuttal, in the picture in my video of part of the fuselage on the roof of Building 5, in the picture in my video of a piece of landing gear on a building three blocks north of the WTC, and in a picture in my video of a piece of a Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D engine found on Church Street three blocks north of the WTC, which you show with the caption, "And what exactly is this find?"
There are good empirical arguments that this engine piece is as stated, but the argument that the engine is the wrong type makes no sense on an a priori basis as well. As poster "Edx" asked on the JREF forum, "...Why do you think these conspirators would intentionally plant an engine that wasn't from a Boeing 767 in the streets in order to fake evidence that a Boeing 767 crashed .... especially when they know people will take pictures of it and then someone could just stand up and say that it couldn't be from that plane?"
And as Jim Hoffman points out at 911research.wtc7.net, "The majority of Flight 175 and the vast majority of Flight 11 remains were trapped in the towers."
The rebuttal video then states, "Folks did say they had heard an explosion alright.. But no one talked about the engine noise, why is that." This point and others are debunked in this video by blog contributor Adam Taylor:
Related:
Debunking "September Clues" and "No Plane" Theories
