Originally posted by MolecularPhD

"How does a craft weighting 220,000 lbs with a wing span of 124 feet; made of component parts most of which are virtually indestructibly ;make such a small hole in the Pentagon; and leave nothing behind to conclusively identify it as a 757?" or for that matter that it was flight 77?

most of which are virtually indestructibly

THIS IS SOOOO WROOONG!!!
Virtually indestructible?? (And not talking about the spelling.)
So, airplanes are virtually indistructible??

Originally posted by MolecularPhD


This is a photo of the plane you are talking about (notice the nose cone)

This is a photo of a 757 notice the nose cone.

AGAIN..........WROOOONG!!!

It´s a B757 alright, but different than the one from the crash photo.
Just look at the distance from the cockpit window to the frame of the door.
DIFFERENT AIRPLANE FRIEND. (From the crashed one.)



[edit on 10-5-2010 by rush969]

Originally posted by MolecularPhD
I can only speak for myself; as one who has spent a whole lot of time in those same shadows you are speaking of; not everything that appears kosher is.

Respectfully

MolecularPHD

All right, fair enough...but that still doesn't give you the right to embellish things to get people to think what you want them to think. The so called "mysterious second plane" has long ago been identified as a nearby C-130 asked to follow flight 77, and all it took was a 30 second google search to find out the details. How can you call yourself a "truther" when you've been caught red handed at making paranoid "it was dropping manufactured wreckage" nonsense up off the top of your head?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
What do you mean, "you'll be contacting them"? You made the claim that some explosives create black smoke while others create white smoke. You're telling me you made the claim without investigating to see whether it was even true yet?

Different types of explosives and incendiaries cause different color smoke to emanate from steel (and other things). You want the exact name/type for a specific color and I don't have that information. When I find out, you'll find out.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
...and you STILL evade the point- if not all floors required controlled demolitions, then it necessarily means than none of the floors required controlled demolitions.

It absolutely does not necessarily mean that no floors required explosives besides the impact floors. Most steel-structured building demolitions have explosives from top to bottom. And that doesn't mean on every single floor either. There's a reason why they put explosives from top to bottom in those buildings. Because blowing one floor will not weaken the structure below it and the building would not completely collapse.

That massive steel structures that were the twin towers and WTC 7 would not have fallen from minimal damage, nor from fires either.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
where substancial damage from the impact and the subsequent fires

Who's concocting things now? By NIST's own numbers the damage was not substantial to either tower from the plane impacts. Remember: 15% damage to the structure in the impact zones leaving 85% of the structure intact. 15% damage is not substantial by any means. Especially the massive structures that were the twin towers.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
There you have it folks. Another truther that will ignore someone that shows them facts.

Please tell everyone here how posting the word "wind" is showing someone facts? Not only did you not provide any source that factually proves the Hoboken video was only "wind", you didn't post any source at all! You posted the word "wind"? You obviously haven't the slightest clue on what the word "facts" means.

And you ignored the real fact that your denial-driven "wind" blew 9 times before the south tower collapsed which was corroborated by first responders, and you ignored the real fact that your denial-driven "wind" blew at the exact moment all three towers collapsed and for the duration of each collapse.

Deny ignorance instead of being in love with it.

Originally posted by pteridine
We have a photographer and hanger-on stating his opinions.

He's also an explosives technician. Convenient you left that part out.

Originally posted by pteridine
Squibs are back in the picture

They never left the picture. They've always been in the picture for all the years I've been researching 9/11.

Originally posted by iamcpc
Why do people like bonez chose to ignore the evidence that points away from demolition

Trust me, I don't ignore it. I just don't agree with it and neither does all available evidence concerning 9/11. Those are two separate things.

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I do not know how he was verified. You are more than welcome to contact AE911T or KPFA radio and ask them how Sullivan was verified.

Stacey Loizeaux from CDI was contacted and has admitted that she KNOWS him. Tom went to high school with Doug Loizeaux. He is a freelance still photographer. He worked on a corporate brochure for the company and tagged along on a few jobs to get still images for it.

Mr. Sullivan's opinions on 9/11 are just that. He is not a qualified demolitions expert or a Structural Engineer. He is riding the coat tails of other frauds like Richard Gage and DRG.

LOL this is why I despise skeptics! You can have all the proof and they still deny it! This is why we are a failed species!

Something this big comes out and oh he has no "true" credentials!

Originally posted by GorehoundLarry
I Know I'm going to get flamed for this and that's fine. I'm just asking an innocent question and hope for a constructive answer:

Let's say if the OS is indeed true, isn't it possible that explosives in the World Trade Center buildings were planted by Muslim terrorists and not by Agents who work for the government like many 9/11 truthers believe. (At least that's what I'd imagine they'd believe in)

Once again, I'm just asking. Thank you!

[edit on 9-5-2010 by GorehoundLarry]

try ISraelis spies and agents to help these scum bags. I can see why USA is hiding a lot of things because Israel is our ally.

Originally posted by dragnet53



LOL this is why I despise skeptics! You can have all the proof and they still deny it! This is why we are a failed species!

Something this big comes out and oh he has no "true" credentials!

I can't see his credentials anywhere. He may have some kind of certification but it appears that his job is to take photos.

Originally posted by NightGypsy

BoneZ has proven his credibility with posts that have research behind them. The closer we get to the day the betrayers of this country are revealed for what they are, the more absurd your arguments become.

"Research" in this case consists of cut-and-paste from somegroup-for-911-truth websites.
I have asked before and have never had a reasoned answer to the following:
People have seen many videos of controlled demolition of buildings but have not seen videos of accidental collapse to compare them with. If WTC was brought down with CD, how would accidental collapse, as described by the NIST report, have differed?

Originally posted by MolecularPhD
If asking for a logical explanation to the questions I have posed makes me paranoid; "WOW" there would be a lot of people in this country that are paranoid for thinking? According to certain people posting in this thread we should all just except what is sold to us by the power's to be; and if we do not suspend logical thought in order to do so, we are categorized as "PARANOID CONSPIRACY THEORISTS" which I am far from being.

All right then, let's look at the facts- it's already been established years ago that the second plane over the Pentagon was a C-130 that had been asked by controllers at Reagan to follow and identify flight 77. If memory serves, it even discusses this in the 9/11 commission report. Yet, you still speculate what the "mysterious plane" could have been, which can only mean you haven't even bothered to try to find out whether the plane had been identified. Your hypothesis doesn't explain how the "manufactured wreckage" the mysterious plane dropped got *inside" the Pentagon, telling me you didn't know that wreckage was found inside the Pentagon either.

It'd be one thing if you looked at the facts and disagreed with them, but it's clear you didn't look at the facts *at all*. If you take umbrage when I point out than in absence of the facts your natural inclination is to side in with explanations of conspiracy, which by definition declares you a "paranoid conspiracy theorist", well, I'm sorry, but if the shoe fits, wear it.

Please bear in mind that I'm not here to embarass you, or to make you look stupid. You certainly aren't stupid and I know you mean well. I'm simply here to expose the disgusting con artists (I.E. Dylan Avery) behind those damned fool conspiracy web sites spreading these idiotic conspiracy stories to get people all paranoid over shadows. You yourself are merely the victim in their con.