Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Shaped like the body of the plane .... traveling in a direct line with the impacting plane ... demonstrating solid mass including light reflecting off the top, shadow on the bottom and casting a shadow ....
1. It has to be shaped like something. For this fraction of second, that is what it was shaped like. Look at the frames of video on either side of that still. You will note it does not hold that shape for very long.
2. Newtons laws of motion would require that, yes, most of the debris would be traveling in the same line as the impacting plane.
3. Clouds are not solid masses, and yet they reflect light off the top and shadow on the bottom and cast shadows themselves.
You really don't think very hard about stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Your link is a FARCE ... and you can claim that the Mona Lisa is actually a picture of Betty Grable if you like ... and you make such asinine allegories all of the time ....
Says the guy who still doesn't know the difference between a thermic lance and thermite.
Again I say you cannot have that- and your kerosene too.
There is no possibility that 1800 degrees F was reached assuming a jet fuel fire. So let's say it was aluminum, orange molten aluminum, at around 1800 degrees F- what caused it to heat to that temperature? You're going to have to come up with something other than kerosene, desks, and carpets.
" Summarizing:
We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.
Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F).
Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.
It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.
"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."
Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A).
Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers.
Conclusion:
The jet fuel fires played almost no role in the collapse of the World Trade Center."
Well it looks like the entire thread has been primarily about there having been no airplanes used, and how the buildings were demolished with explosives, with no respect to evidence showing the contrary. I think all of such theories are ridiculous, if not more ridiculous than the original story told by the government that exonerates anyone within it. So some of these people posing as "truthers" appear to be spouting disinformation. What next? You're going to talk about a missile at the Pentagon, right? Or a plane being present, but flying over and past the Pentagon, which no one saw, right? These are lies, and anyone who still believes and promulgates them after all the evidence that has been released after ten years (which is still nowhere near enough) is a liar, or an unwitting participant of a huge hoax to discredit those of us who legitimately seek accountability and true revelations about who were involved with those who allegedly orchestrated the attacks, and who covered it up.
I blame people like you for the stationary progress of what used to be a real truth movement to get answers and justice. Any real researcher who has objectively seen all the evidence released will not concede to these theories about missiles or thermite or the absence of planes hitting those targets, because none of it is supported by legitimate evidence. At first they were interesting in, say 2003-2005, but now it's just such a lazy conclusion to reach with your only sources being a couple of 911truth web sites.
Focus on what can be proven and what the evidence shows, what contradictions are in them, point to actual people, names that need to be investigated like Jamal Kahn, Rudi Dekkers, Dov Zakheim et al., intelligence connections that put officials in the DIA and DoD in the line of fire, Israeli Mossad, etc.
And if I were to put bets on any scenario being the likeliest, it's that Muhammad Atta was an informant working for the CIA, and was instructed to lead this ring of "terrorists," not by Osama Bin Laden (AKA codename "Tim Ossman," the CIA informant which the 9/11 investigation did reveal), but by this Jamal Kahn character (who has seemingly disappeared from existence the way anyone would expect an intelligence agent to do after being "outed") who Dr. David Graham (mysteriously deceased immediately before publishing his manuscript about Kahn's relations with alleged hijackers) identified in Louisiana with several of the alleged hijackers in Louisiana a year before the attacks, in a similar way the 1993 WTC bomber was affiliated with the FBI and they armed him with explosives -- it too was covered up.
As the Report reads, the system was blinking red. That's not because someone knew and didn't know where to go and was confused and "unprepared," and whatever lie of an excuse they claimed; the system was blinking red because the government and foreign intelligence agencies (including the Mossad, whose knowledge regarding the alleged hijackers' activities prior to the attacks is still classified) knew who Atta was, had identified him, and knew that he was an agent for the US government in some capacity, knew that he was being protected by, not only the State department but seemingly every form of law enforcement and intelligence agencies that ever encountered him and his crew, around the world, knew that they were on an operation, and knew when, where, and how it would take place -- and officials within this government went to great lengths to cover it all up and ensure that there was absolutely no intervention with the way the attack was to occur. No, this is not a scenario that was "allowed to happen," this was something that was orchestrated this way by people in the CIA, the White House, the State Department, the FBI, the Pentagon, the DIA, and the Mossad. Lest we forget how much Israel benefits from the U.S. being violently provoked into a crusade on the Arab world that would morally be supported by nearly every American the instant 8:45 came on September 11th 2011 and there was even a sliver of thought that it was intentional, everyone was saying "we should get them back!" Just look at George W. Bush's approval ratings immediately following the attacks. Plans to attack Afghanistan were in place since 2000, plans to take over the Middle East were in place since 2000 as well, and it all came into play, thanks to the attacks being the catalyst to achieve such ambitious goals that wouldn't have had a moral advantage otherwise.
Like Rumsfeld said, there are a lot of known knowns, the things we know we know, and a lot of known unknowns, the things we know we don't know, and even more unknown unknowns, the things we don't know we don't know (or however he put it). So how someone can sit on their tail and say with a serious face and with knowledge from research of what was told happened and even an inch of critical thinking skills; how someone can sit on their tail and say with a straight face, objectively and without bias, that 9/11 was not the product of an inside job, by the very definition of "inside" job, or conspiracy within our own government, is beyond comprehension.
And you want to sit here and talk about demolitions and how fast a free-standing steel beam without any reinforcement whatsoever will bend like a noodle when intense heat is introduced? You want to go back and forth about how every single camcorder aimed at the WTC towers that day were somehow rigged because there actually were no planes involved? That's what you want to consider the most significant aspect of this and the greatest reason for why it actually was orchestrated by rogue elements within our own government? Well if that's your whole argument then you're going to be arguing your entire life, and never get the time of day to demand any sort of accountability.
What's the slogan post-9/11? "Justice will prevail"? Not talking about that unsubstantiated nonsense it won't. And that's why we're here ten years after and have made no progress toward another investigation, much less had anyone involved be brought to justice because the points you make are so easily discredited that it's no wonder "truthers" are seen as a complete joke.
Like Rumsfeld said, there are a lot of known knowns, the things we know we know, and a lot of known unknowns, the things we know we don't know, and even more unknown unknowns, the things we don't know we don't know (or however he put it). So how someone can sit on their tail and say with a serious face and with knowledge from research of what was told happened and even an inch of critical thinking skills; how someone can sit on their tail and say with a straight face, objectively and without bias, that 9/11 was not the product of an inside job, by the very definition of "inside" job, or conspiracy within our own government, is beyond comprehension.
"A case study in truth and deception:
The University of Texas at Austin, Graduate School of Engineering - 1998. Two professors confront a doctoral candidate about his research that they initiated and supervise. The research measures the efficacy of a selection process for architect and engineering design service called “qualifications-based selection” or more simply as QBS. Both professors emphatically state that they support the QBS process, which is promoted by most of the formal engineering societies. In addition, many states, including Texas, and also the federal government, have passed laws mandating the use of QBS procedures for selecting architectural and engineering services.
In a conference room, the two professors and the graduate student review the results of the research. The graduate student reports that the data does not support the QBS process – that the claimed advantages of QBS - less construction cost and time growth, do not have a different statistical occurrence in QBS-procurred cases than in non-QBS cases. Thus there is no statistical advantage to using the QBS process.
Immediately the professors state that they are no longer interested in pursuing this research, and one of the professors begins to attack the capabilities of the candidate to earn a doctorate. It is clear the professors intend to “kill the message” by “killing the messenger.”
The doctoral candidate complains to the chief graduate advisor of the School of Engineering, and is told that such “blow-ups” between candidates and their advisor do occur, and especially with the two professors in this case. The doctoral candidate is told that he may select another advisor and topic from among the university faculty and no additional course work will be required. A new research subject, will however, mean a minimum of another two years or more of effort, and the cost of enrolling in the University each semester.
The doctoral candidate, after interviewing a few professors for a new research topic, elects to withdraw from the University with a Master’s degree, and enter a less re-known university to complete a doctoral program."
Well it looks like the entire thread has been primarily about there having been no airplanes used, and how the buildings were demolished with explosives, with no respect to evidence showing the contrary. I think all of such theories are ridiculous, if not more ridiculous than the original story told by the government that exonerates anyone within it. So some of these people posing as "truthers" appear to be spouting disinformation. What next? You're going to talk about a missile at the Pentagon, right? Or a plane being present, but flying over and past the Pentagon, which no one saw, right? These are lies, and anyone who still believes and promulgates them after all the evidence that has been released after ten years (which is still nowhere near enough) is a liar, or an unwitting participant of a huge hoax to discredit those of us who legitimately seek accountability and true revelations about who were involved with those who allegedly orchestrated the attacks, and who covered it up.
I blame people like you for the stationary progress of what used to be a real truth movement to get answers and justice. Any real researcher who has objectively seen all the evidence released will not concede to these theories about missiles or thermite or the absence of planes hitting those targets, because none of it is supported by legitimate evidence. At first they were interesting in, say 2003-2005, but now it's just such a lazy conclusion to reach with your only sources being a couple of 911truth web sites.
Focus on what can be proven and what the evidence shows, what contradictions are in them, point to actual people, names that need to be investigated like Jamal Kahn, Rudi Dekkers, Dov Zakheim et al., intelligence connections that put officials in the DIA and DoD in the line of fire, Israeli Mossad, etc.
And if I were to put bets on any scenario being the likeliest, it's that Muhammad Atta was an informant working for the CIA, and was instructed to lead this ring of "terrorists," not by Osama Bin Laden (AKA codename "Tim Ossman," the CIA informant which the 9/11 investigation did reveal), but by this Jamal Kahn character (who has seemingly disappeared from existence the way anyone would expect an intelligence agent to do after being "outed") who Dr. David Graham (mysteriously deceased immediately before publishing his manuscript about Kahn's relations with alleged hijackers) identified in Louisiana with several of the alleged hijackers in Louisiana a year before the attacks, in a similar way the 1993 WTC bomber was affiliated with the FBI and they armed him with explosives -- it too was covered up.
As the Report reads, the system was blinking red. That's not because someone knew and didn't know where to go and was confused and "unprepared," and whatever lie of an excuse they claimed; the system was blinking red because the government and foreign intelligence agencies (including the Mossad, whose knowledge regarding the alleged hijackers' activities prior to the attacks is still classified) knew who Atta was, had identified him, and knew that he was an agent for the US government in some capacity, knew that he was being protected by, not only the State department but seemingly every form of law enforcement and intelligence agencies that ever encountered him and his crew, around the world, knew that they were on an operation, and knew when, where, and how it would take place -- and officials within this government went to great lengths to cover it all up and ensure that there was absolutely no intervention with the way the attack was to occur. No, this is not a scenario that was "allowed to happen," this was something that was orchestrated this way by people in the CIA, the White House, the State Department, the FBI, the Pentagon, the DIA, and the Mossad. Lest we forget how much Israel benefits from the U.S. being violently provoked into a crusade on the Arab world that would morally be supported by nearly every American the instant 8:45 came on September 11th 2011 and there was even a sliver of thought that it was intentional, everyone was saying "we should get them back!" Just look at George W. Bush's approval ratings immediately following the attacks. Plans to attack Afghanistan were in place since 2000, plans to take over the Middle East were in place since 2000 as well, and it all came into play, thanks to the attacks being the catalyst to achieve such ambitious goals that wouldn't have had a moral advantage otherwise.
Like Rumsfeld said, there are a lot of known knowns, the things we know we know, and a lot of known unknowns, the things we know we don't know, and even more unknown unknowns, the things we don't know we don't know (or however he put it). So how someone can sit on their tail and say with a serious face and with knowledge from research of what was told happened and even an inch of critical thinking skills; how someone can sit on their tail and say with a straight face, objectively and without bias, that 9/11 was not the product of an inside job, by the very definition of "inside" job, or conspiracy within our own government, is beyond comprehension.
And you want to sit here and talk about demolitions and how fast a free-standing steel beam without any reinforcement whatsoever will bend like a noodle when intense heat is introduced? You want to go back and forth about how every single camcorder aimed at the WTC towers that day were somehow rigged because there actually were no planes involved? That's what you want to consider the most significant aspect of this and the greatest reason for why it actually was orchestrated by rogue elements within our own government? Well if that's your whole argument then you're going to be arguing your entire life, and never get the time of day to demand any sort of accountability.
What's the slogan post-9/11? "Justice will prevail"? Not talking about that unsubstantiated nonsense it won't. And that's why we're here ten years after and have made no progress toward another investigation, much less had anyone involved be brought to justice because the points you make are so easily discredited that it's no wonder "truthers" are seen as a complete joke.
This is an excellent post. I hold this viewpoint as well.
I can't believe this loony palooza now has 600 posts. truthers are simply dupes for Al qaeda.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
