To our forum plane experts - shame on you.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Seventh

 

So when I post a copy of a 1912 newspaper article quoting Bruce Ismay as saying the Titanic is unsinkable, will you start looking for the dastardly fellow who put the iceberg in her path? Or did someone wire the hull with explosives?

Someone saying a building could withstand multiple airliners crashing into it, does not make it true.

Ahhh so they never made that claim, they did not account for the full weight, they never considered the fuel, etc.

-Oh wait, the manager of construction says that it was all.....

well so, they said the Titanic was unsinkable too so they just lied.

Way to shift the goalposts, swampy!

[edit on 10/14/09 by Lillydale]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Engineers did once say we would never land on the moon or that splitting the atom would end life on Earth...and they were wrong. Just as the engineers who said the Towers would survive the impact of an airliner were wrong.

Then is it not the case that the structural engineers and architects should be arrested on charges of gross negligence and incompetence resulting in the loss of life, for failing to take into consideration that the few gallons of jet fuel left of the 10 times larger than normal explosion, would travel through the building igniting at random points, weaken 100`000 tons of steel, and reduce 110 acres of concrete to dust. How the hell can they overlook such blatantly obvious design flaws? , hell even OBL pointed this out in his video (before someone else was arrested for it).

A quick reminder of the 2nd explosion..

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c64758ca0624.jpg[/atsimg]

See it yet?.

reply to post by Seventh

Then is it not the case that the structural engineers and architects should be arrested on charges of gross negligence and incompetence resulting in the loss of life, for failing to take into consideration that the few gallons of jet fuel left of the 10 times larger than normal explosion, would travel through the building igniting at random points, weaken 100`000 tons of steel, and reduce 110 acres of concrete to dust. How the hell can they overlook such blatantly obvious design flaws? , hell even OBL pointed this out in his video (before someone else was arrested for it).

And this is why very few people take you seriously. A complete lack of understanding of the situation.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

And this is why very few people take you seriously. A complete lack of understanding of the situation.

Yep it is hard to take any reply relating to the OS serious.

Footnote.

I have made several threads with aspects completely new, or old ones presented differently, in these there are questions unanswered, I cba to link every thread, so here is the list....

1). Cut steels showing no signs of thermal cutting.

2). Seismic data and the 14 and 17 seconds (respectively) to early, data recordings.

3). The exterior sections with straight cuts along more than one section, these were constructed in a staggered bond, also I pointed out that one picture clearly showed all three truss seat fixings had been removed.

4). The irregular alloy Facade lengths - Around certain areas these have been cut into smaller lengths ie - from one storey (12 feet) to just above and below the truss seats.

5). I debunked the TLC video showing the *BIRD*.

6). The craters in WTC6-5, and the anomalies of the lower steel damage.

7). My recent different colours explosions threads.

All the above has seen absolutely no reasonable explanation whatsoever from you guys, why is this?, or a typical debunkers response - My threads are not to be taken seriously, hence the lack of replies from you lot.

You asked me to prove that one of the design team had stated that the towers could withstand a fleet of 707`s hitting them, I did, your response was akin to two 10 year olds fighting over candy.

There is a reason that towers constructed to withstand a plane hitting them, did not, live with it, stop twisting it to suit your agenda.

Yours truly, Seventh, happy in the knowledge I have you guys over a barrel in certain aspects so hard, you have to character defame me.

lmfao.

reply to post by Seventh


I'm sorry...what was your point here, again??

You have gone so far astray...."a fleet of 707s"...

Even the thread title is misleading....

"...forum plane experts..." generally do NOT have expertise in how the explosive fireballs react, in airplane crashes...(becuase IF they are in one they either die, or aren't paying attention, for obvious reasons)...but we can ONLY investigate from OTHER video sources of somewhat similar events.

And, I am sorry, but not YOU, nor ANYONE ELSE can conclusively predict, nor model, HOW the airliners that hit the WTC Towers that morning SHOULD have looked like....

This entire thread amounts to nothing other than a feeble attempt to explain, based on FLAWED examinations, what someone (you) have already concluded to be something else....

Let's back up a bit, and try to examine WHAT you are alleging, in this thread:

Actually, I've lost track, perhaps you can correct me...but, it SEEMS that (A) the intent of this thread is to imply that there was something other than Jet-A involved in the explosions and fireballs seen and, (B) by that implication it follows that SOMETHING else was responsible for the explosion, and 'color', of hte fireball...correct so far??

Allright....soooo......

IF someone (the OP) wishes to allege some other 'explosive' "sopmething" besides just the jet fuel....THEN this someone (the OP) has to explain exactly HOW this was arranged, to "fool" hundreds of thousands of people, nay MILLIONS of people, and only one or two "know" the 'truth'???

Let me re-phrase that....clear it up for us....

ALL of this 'other' explosive 'stuff'....whatever it is alleged to have been....was it ONBOARD the regularly-scheduled commercial airplanes (AKA AAL 11 and UAL 175)....OR, was it 'pre-planted' in the WTC Towers, on just EXACTLY the right floors, ready fo the airplanes to impact...EVEN THOUGH THEY HIT at different levels...?

OR.....were these NOT 'regularly scheduled commercial jets (AKA AAL11 and UAL 175) but, instead, some sort of "decoys"???

SO FAR, this thread has just been all over the map, as is usually the case with these folks who think "they've" solved it!!!!

So, how about sticking to ONE 'theory' and letting everyone in on it???? Hmmmmmm????

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Before I begin my rant, a brief summary of what is happening around this forum... Not long after this event happened and in readiness to deal with it, CT`s were outrageously classified as nutjobs, whacko`s, fruitcakes, whatever, so anyone who questioned the OS were thus tarred with the character assassination brush, no matter what points are brought up here, every single thread gets derailed, and the thread starter made to look like some sort of leprosy ridden vermin to even suggest such a thing, basically, i`ve personally had enough of it.

In reply to your post.... My point here again was the guys posting whom claim to be pilots etc, anyone with knowledge in planes and jet fuel fires knows damn well that the outrageously over the top secondary explosions at WTC2 were not jet fuel induced, I will bring my other thread here.....

The 1st picture that proves conclusively that the South face explosion was completely different to the East face.........

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/edf851e68655.jpg[/atsimg]

The final frame and final frame with the 1st, just how did the initial explosion expand as much as this?.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c64758ca0624.jpg[/atsimg]

Now it starts getting good, the frames here show that the plane was flying perfectly level, I used different stills at the various points the plane was, lined them up identical and cast a straight line, this becomes very apparent when you reach the bottom picture of this block..........

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/07e02a107861.jpg[/atsimg]

So here we have pictures that prove the different colours have nothing to do with different capture devices, we also have an initial explosion that started perfectly level and end up 6-8 storeys off centre.

So I will ask this question once again..... What caused the secondary explosions?, and how did the North face exit explosion manage to rise 6-8 storeys above the South face?.

Now, as per normal I have backed up with relative evidence, to what I state, now you, as a plane expert can explain...

1). Why the blatantly obvious x2 different explosion compositions?.

2). Why the huge increase in debris from the building, when the red flames and black smoke appeared?.

3). Why is the North face exit 72-96 feet above the South face exit, when the plane hit the building dead level.

4). How did the South face exit explosion break the laws of momentum, by travelling backwards, completely against the directional forward forces it had to encounter to do this?.

Now, as we are not to be taken serious, and obviously i`m batting against the OS with an alternative explanation, plus you have a much vaster knowledge of all aspects of aircraft, my findings should be very easy to prove incorrect....

The floor is yours.

Your problem is very simple:
You have NO FINDINGS.
you haven´t proven anything, other than:
1.- You can paste photos or stills from videos and put arrows and comments on them, drawing conclusions which are complete fabrications unsupported by any science.
2.- You are unable to tell the difference from the explosion of a jetliner crashing against a building from a bomb going off in that same building. (Can you please post a photograph or video still of an explosion in a similar building and the colors that appear in such an event? For comparison?) Lighting has to be exactly the same, ok?
3.- Irresponsibly reaching conclusions about what the colors in explosions mean.
4.- You have made claims about aviation accidents that are assumptions which cannot be made for all aviation crashes. (Like the exact number of parts that should be left after a crash.)

reply to post by Seventh

My point here again was the guys posting whom claim to be pilots etc...

I don't 'claim' to be....but, regardless, the rest of this is nonsense...

...anyone with knowledge in planes and jet fuel fires...

WHAT does being a pilot have to do with "knowledge of jet fuel fires'????

IF YOU WISH to ask someone about jet fuel fires, then ask a fireman (Airport Fire and Rescue) type of person....PILOTS DON'T USUALLY LIVE through airplane crashes, NOR are they 'experts' on the jhet fuel fires....

....knows damn well that...

It seems only YOU "knows dams well that"....what YOU are saying is YOUR opinion, based sloley on YOUR interpretation and flooding of the boards.

Still, everyone needs a hobby, I guess....

.... the outrageously over the top secondary explosions at WTC2 were not jet fuel induced, I will bring my other thread here.....

OK...."secondary explosions"???

Instead of preaching to everyone, HOW ABOUT EXPLAINING 'how' the airplanes were made to hit at JUST THE RIGHT part of the Towers, where these "pre-placed" 'secondary explosives' were ready....please explain.

The firefighters who made it to the 78th floor stated they only saw 2 small fires, NOT THE LARGE JET FUEL FIRES ON SEVERAL FLOORS THAT THE OFFICIAL STORY RANTS ABOUT.

Originally posted by PHIXER2
The firefighters who made it to the 78th floor stated they only saw 2 small fires, NOT THE LARGE JET FUEL FIRES ON SEVERAL FLOORS THAT THE OFFICIAL STORY RANTS ABOUT.

So Roger Misner, what's your point?

The rational realize that the small fires on the 78th floor is zero evidence of what the fires were like above it.

Too bad that you can't offer any facts or evidence otherwise.

Do some research and get some facts and evidence or your lack of facts and evidence will prove that the fact that you are banned everywhere you go to be justified.

Originally posted by rush969

Your problem is very simple: You have NO FINDINGS. you haven´t proven anything, other than:

I do not have a *problem*, and I have not heard one explanation as yet regarding the West face point of view, nor any sort of believable theory as to why the same explosion was completely different at the South and East face exits.

1.- You can paste photos or stills from videos and put arrows and comments on them, drawing conclusions which are complete fabrications unsupported by any science.

I simply point out the blatantly obvious, that, if everything was as the OS leads us to believe then all these hundreds of anomalies would not be here. We question these aspects and you guys try and fob us off with `It`s common knowledge that it happens like that), yet, not one shred of evidence to back up any debunking is ever offered, why is this if these *anomalies* are the norm.

Science you say?, science stopped having a bearing on 9/11 around the time WTC2 collapsed, how would science explain this?......

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7a13ed8894de.jpg[/atsimg]

2.- You are unable to tell the difference from the explosion of a jetliner crashing against a building from a bomb going off in that same building. (Can you please post a photograph or video still of an explosion in a similar building and the colors that appear in such an event? For comparison?) Lighting has to be exactly the same, ok?

The only pictures of anything like multicolour explosions from the same source are of WTC2, you guys really do have a problem with this so I made it even easier for you all.......

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d47984c475f3.jpg[/atsimg]

3.- Irresponsibly reaching conclusions about what the colors in explosions mean.

As above.

4.- You have made claims about aviation accidents that are assumptions which cannot be made for all aviation crashes. (Like the exact number of parts that should be left after a crash.)

I stated the blatantly obvious, once again raw facts get tarred with the `Truthers are bad mmmk` brush. Rather than post a link to every single air crash ever, I again, made it very simple.... A montage of planes, jet fuel fires, and respective debris that, due to it`s design and strengths survives all a *normal* plane crash can throw at it.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/72a95d6aebb7.jpg[/atsimg]

So an assessment of the assessment you made about me.....

1). I use pictures, frames, whatever, and point out the anomalies that 100% exist, and should not be there under normal circumstances, this however is classed by you lot as no proof of anything as it`s purely my imagination running riot.

2). I have proved there are genuine points that do not add up to the OS.

3). My assumptions regarding how many of the - Built so strong plane parts they eat jet fuel for breakfast, were found, which if anyone does some Googling around crash investigator sites etc, will find they are not assumptions but fact.


Notice the plane crash pictures I posted, and the difference between normal, and Bush induced.

.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Seventh

 

I don't 'claim' to be....but, regardless, the rest of this is nonsense...

You don't? You have spent the better part of a thread trying to prove to me that you were a pilot. Now you never claimed to be one?

What you don´t get Seventh, is this:
You are not showing proof or evidence of anything.
You are saying things are something they are not.
You are making claims of things that are not there.
You say that the color in a still image that you have manipulated is evidence of something.
Plus you are saying that “the guys posting whom claim to be pilots etc, anyone with knowledge of airplanes and jet fuel fires knows damn well that the outrageously over the top secondary explosions at WTC2 were not jet fuel induced”. WHAT?????!!!!!!
Anyone with knowledge of airplanes and jet fuel fires???
Secondary explosions??? Not jet fuel induced???
TALK ABOUT “JUST SAYING THINGS”. MAN!!!!!!

reply to post by Lillydale


You are missing his point. He doesnt claim to be a pilot, he IS a pilot.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Lillydale

 

You are missing his point. He doesnt claim to be a pilot, he IS a pilot.

Yeah, you are both missing how English works or what a claim is. How would you know that he was a pilot? He made that claim. Didn't you guys get your dictionaries yet?

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
So when I post a copy of a 1912 newspaper article quoting Bruce Ismay as saying the Titanic is unsinkable, will you start looking for the dastardly fellow who put the iceberg in her path? Or did someone wire the hull with explosives?

It had to happen... Swampfox has run out of ideas, so he resorts to using the Titanic. Note, this is not the first time that official governmentstory believers have tried to use the Titanic in their attempt to defend their official story...

Some ATS 'pilots' claim that the WTC planes had to be descending to reach their speed. Yet, they have also claimed that that the flight paths were flat. No wonder it's easier for some people to bring up the Titanic as a diversion.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

So Roger Misner, what's your point?

VERY SIMPLE. The point is the firefighters show reasoble doubt in the official story since they did not find the large jet fuel fires on other floors that the official story states were there.

WE HAVE THE TRANSCRIPTS FROM THE FIREFIGHTERS. Unles you can prove the firefighters were wrong or lying.

[edit on 16-10-2009 by PHIXER2]