It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by MrWhite665
reply to post by Ben81
Has anyone noticed why the Japanese people haven't caused riots or looted stores like the blacks did during Katrina?
Anyway, why the heck am I doing this anyway?
Shouldn't you be able to prove your side just as conclusively?
I mean, you keep saying that I need to prove that it wasn't your idea, yet you haven't provided any proof for your idea either.
No tests that indicate what happens during a fuel laden crash explosion... not even the hint of a scientific paper to illustrate the complete burning up of all fuel during an explosive impact.
“The following videos show a "shadow plane," that is a dark object with no discernable markings on it other than being shaped like a Boeing 767.”
Video taken by the Naudet brothers who also caught the 2nd crash. Notice the aircraft captured on the video is unrecognizable and brief explosion seems to come out of the North Tower before the aircraft hits.
Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by wmd_2008
Where, in all your gibberish, did you discuss Tina Cart, Robert Clark, and Wolfgang Staehl's identical images?
The unknown "amateur" TinaCart1 crash (and collapse) video, Robert Clark photo, and Wolfgang Staehle CCTV still looks like they were all taken from the same location:
Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Yankee451
Well Yankee451 wasted 10 mins of my life finding your links for Tina etc they wasted another 30mins having a look at some of the flawed reasoning regarding their pictures and some others on the net.
Going to work now will be back on later pointing out the flawed assumptions re the photographs, when it comes to photography/video the truthers as as bad as the moon hoax believers when looking at pictures and video
Originally posted by Game_Over
Varemia states:
"As to your post, yes, I do think that's what happened. Certainly not exactly as I imagine it, as that was no more than an amateur guess with no actual evidential support to back it up, but something "along those lines" had to have happened. Otherwise the blown out lobbies and basement would make no sense whatsoever, and there would be no apparent reason to do it with bombs since we have video and firefighters talking about the blown out areas."
-- Thank you for clarifying that. I now have full confidence that your posts are to be ignored. Not out of ignorance, but rather to deny your ignorance. You have proven without a doubt that your mind will support any fantasy necessary to make it fit with the OS.
Varemia states:
"Why the heck would it be covered up if jet fuel can easily explain it? And yes, perhaps it didn't 'outrun' the combustion. As I said, I'm not an expert, but the fuel certainly made it down there."
-- No it didn't. Here is a test. Ask the other trusters on this site if they agree with you.
Whats that sound?
Crickets.
Varemia states:
"Unless you can tell me why explosives would be set to go off at the same time as the plane impacts in areas where there was no impact and severed no known supports, I can't see why it would be anything other than the plane's explosion that would cause it."
-- I get that you can't see why explosives would be set to go off simultaneously. No, in fact you could see, if you'd only look. But like I stated above, you are ignorant and therefore, denied. Your posts are now filtered for being irrelevant.
Varemia states:
"So, please, enlighten me if you have information that would help me understand this. And no using rhetoric to act as if it is self evident. I will not accept the words "it's obvious," "anyone can see," or "there's no way" when referring to the official story. You have to actually use reasons and logic to explain them, or else I will not be able to acknowledge it as reasonable and meaningful in my understanding. Thanks, and I await your response."
-- Well then listen up son, cause here is that "reason" and "logic" you crave so much. With one's own eyes you can see the majority of the "jet fuel" is ignited on impact into the towers. The speed at which fuel ignites is very fast. Faster than the speed of that same fuel traveling through the air. Therefore it would be impossible for unburned jet fuel to beat the explosive fireball and pour down the elevator shafts as you described and believe.
Secondly, there is not enough fuel in those tanks to cascade all the way down the multiple elevator shafts in any meaningful amount even if the fuel remained liquid and did not ignite on impact. Did that help?
As a matter of fact though, I don't really care if it did. I honestly believe you are not mature enough to comprehend this level of thinking. So with all due respect, I look forward to talking with you in the future, until then "May the Truth be with you."
Originally posted by TheIsraelite777
Originally posted by Game_Over
Agreed, it's impossible for any jet fuel to leak without blowing up with the rest of it. It's IMPOSSIBLE.
Originally posted by Game_Over
reply to post by vipertech0596
Exactly. You saw the fireball.
You can see how tall the buildings are and what floor each of the jets hit.
Are you suggesting that there was enough liquid fuel left over after the fireball that went down the elevator shafts?
British-born survivor Paul Neal tells how he smelt jet fuel rushing through the lift shafts close to his desk. "I recognised it because I'm a private pilot. I recall smelling it and instantly dismissed it as being illogical because it didn't have any place in the World Trade Center."
Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by wmd_2008
Sorry, I do skim, my bad. Priorities I understand, by all means tend your family.
All razzing aside, I am interested in your analysis of the photos. If they are not showing identical perspectives, please use your experience to explain it.