Regardless of your opinions of 9/11 , you need to read this.

reply to post by Yankee451


Really? No planes? You are a disgrace, honestly, to the people who died that day...on those planes. Fathers, mothers, husbands, wives, brothers, sisters. I feel sorry for some of you. You talk about hating the government and you do not realize that you have been indoctrinated. You talk of physics and thermite and CIA/Mossad ops but at no time do you even try to comprehend what is actually going on around the world and throw away any threat as ragheads with boxcutters in caves. conditioning again...so when the time comes you will accept it becuase if it is on the internet it must be true.

You are being controlled by the very people with the power to pull off something like this. Do none of you realize that? You call the ones who believe that our country was attacked as the sheeple, the ones who follow when that is not true. The few of us out here who want not the truth but just the story to be understood without all the anti-government rants. You sound like Nazi;s. spouting a doctrine and blindly repeating what you read and see.

It is those who know what happened that day that will be ready and tell the government to eat the end of a mossberg if they try to take away that right. WAKE UP folks and realize there are 2 sides to them. There always has been and always will be.

reply to post by pteridine

What is consistent with the fireballs is thousands of gallons of jet fuel. HE explosions are much different. The chances of a plane doing the damage are much greater than carefully launched missiles that cut out an aircraft silhouette in the building. You are much better off claiming prepositioned explosives and jet fuel smuggled up in coffee mugs. No JASSMs for you.

Let me restate my position:.

The media have been run by the CIA since the 40s.
The Internet is part of the media.
I contend the Truth Movement and conspiracy sites like this one are part of the CIA's disinformation program, with representatives on both sides tasked with directing and managing public perception and directing suspicion away from the media.
I contend since most of the content on this 911 forum is limited to anything but the media, that this is an example of that effort, and that posters who continually derail conversations with irrelevant comments are as well.

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Yankee451

 

Really? No planes? You are a disgrace, honestly, to the people who died that day...on those planes. Fathers, mothers, husbands, wives, brothers, sisters. I feel sorry for some of you. You talk about hating the government and you do not realize that you have been indoctrinated. You talk of physics and thermite and CIA/Mossad ops but at no time do you even try to comprehend what is actually going on around the world and throw away any threat as ragheads with boxcutters in caves. conditioning again...so when the time comes you will accept it becuase if it is on the internet it must be true.

You are being controlled by the very people with the power to pull off something like this. Do none of you realize that? You call the ones who believe that our country was attacked as the sheeple, the ones who follow when that is not true. The few of us out here who want not the truth but just the story to be understood without all the anti-government rants. You sound like Nazi;s. spouting a doctrine and blindly repeating what you read and see.

It is those who know what happened that day that will be ready and tell the government to eat the end of a mossberg if they try to take away that right. WAKE UP folks and realize there are 2 sides to them. There always has been and always will be.

Hum, mebbe you are the disgrace.
After all thats been said, no need to type any more really...

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Yankee451

 

Really? No planes? You are a disgrace, honestly, to the people who died that day...on those planes.

Never heard that one before.

Please address the observations below.

Originally posted by Yankee451

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by Yankee451

 

The tips did not cut the steel only bent it inwards you know that. The cut steel ended at the same place were the gas tanks ended. Take a look.at the shanksville crater you can clearly see were the fuel tanks end.

Below is a closeup from the left side of the gash. To the left of the severely bent columns, note the two with the dents on the LEFT side of the column, an indication of the direction of travel of the projectile.

Since the wings of a 767 are swept-back 35 degrees, even if they could do such damage to steel formed in a box with two protruding edges, they would not dent the columns on the left, as seen in the image.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3884722677ae.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/117fe6565b66.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/40db283a4252.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0a52d52e225a.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/be666c577e6a.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/40904c4910fa.jpg[/atsimg]

Multiple missiles are consistent with the explosions exiting the tower on three sides:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3a3e6c3e4255.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2a3e3b36f715.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Yankee451

When looking at propaganda photographs, it is important to use your head, not your heart.

With those engines falling a quarter mile or so, you'd think they'd leave a dent in the pavement. Folks don't seem to even notice them...follow their eyes. Anyone see the steel engine that just hit the street like a meteor? Nope? It's right in front of you!

I do use my head, that's why i'm not a Truther.

That engine did levee a dent in this building.

reply to post by waypastvne


Are you going to try to point me to a straw stuck in a tree next? Or perhaps you'd prefer to direct our attention to a list of Naval Vessels attacked by Kamikazes?

Please address my last post.

I also remind you we are here to collaborate.

I submit you will be reduced to withdrawing your claim that a jet can cause the damage shown, specifically to the left side of the columns without damaging the right side.

If you do not do this, I suspect your only other choices are silence, ridicule, distraction, or the guilt card....or "my sister's friend's hairdresser and 100 firemen saw it all live, and I have a home video of it."

Originally posted by Yankee451


Are you going to try to point me to a straw stuck in a tree next?

No sorry the horse ate it before I could get the shot.



I like the picture with the little missile wing bending the columns. It makes me giggle.

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by pteridine

 

What is consistent with the fireballs is thousands of gallons of jet fuel. HE explosions are much different. The chances of a plane doing the damage are much greater than carefully launched missiles that cut out an aircraft silhouette in the building. You are much better off claiming prepositioned explosives and jet fuel smuggled up in coffee mugs. No JASSMs for you.

Let me restate my position:.

The media have been run by the CIA since the 40s.
The Internet is part of the media.
I contend the Truth Movement and conspiracy sites like this one are part of the CIA's disinformation program, with representatives on both sides tasked with directing and managing public perception and directing suspicion away from the media.
I contend since most of the content on this 911 forum is limited to anything but the media, that this is an example of that effort, and that posters who continually derail conversations with irrelevant comments are as well.

It is obvious that you can't explain the fuel fireballs in light of your ridiculous JASSM theory so you answer a question about them by saying that it is irrelevant and accusing posters of derailing the thread. You aren't fooling anyone with your bluster. This is a common tactic of the desperate.

Your inconsistencies are also noted. Tiny missile wings bend and cut the steel columns. What are those wings made of? Tool steel or aluminum?

Yankee, your theory is less believeable than Judy Woods death-rays-from-space.

reply to post by waypastvne


That's a good shot.

Is that your best side?

I suppose your claim is the horse had enough KE to pierce the tree.

All very interesting, except it has nothing to do with the dents on the left sides of the columns, which prove a jet couldn't have caused the damage.

I predicted you'd use a distraction, and here we have it, straight from the horse's a...er...mouth.

reply to post by pteridine



Let me restate my position:.

The media have been run by the CIA since the 40s.
The Internet is part of the media.
I contend the Truth Movement and conspiracy sites like this one are part of the CIA's disinformation program, with representatives on both sides tasked with directing and managing public perception and directing suspicion away from the media.
I contend since most of the content on this 911 forum is limited to anything but the media, that this is an example of that effort, and that posters who continually derail conversations with irrelevant comments are as well.


Please address my comments about the damage to the columns.

I submit they prove a plane could not possibly have caused the damage, therefore you must withdraw the claim.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3884722677ae.jpg[/atsimg]

This is a wonderful idea. I think its been tried. Unfortunatly you can point to the sun in the east and say it is rising and half the people with you will say its setting. Too bad for us all.

reply to post by Yankee451


A few questions

1. Why would a JASSM damage the WTC but not a much larger airliner as hit?
2. Multiple strikes would have resulted in multiple bursts as well as removing the top of the WTC. You do know what these missiles are designed to do, right, or are you copying and pasting without research again?
3. Watch this to see what they are designed to do...

www.youtube.com...

4. Just like physical proof of demolitions, there is not ONE picture of a missile hitting ANY buildings that day. None.
5. Where are the people from those planes that did not exist?

reply to post by esdad71

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by pteridine

 

Let me restate my position:.

The media have been run by the CIA since the 40s.
The Internet is part of the media.
I contend the Truth Movement and conspiracy sites like this one are part of the CIA's disinformation program, with representatives on both sides tasked with directing and managing public perception and directing suspicion away from the media.
I contend since most of the content on this 911 forum is limited to anything but the media, that this is an example of that effort, and that posters who continually derail conversations with irrelevant comments are as well.


Please address my comments about the damage to the columns.

I submit they prove a plane could not possibly have caused the damage, therefore you must withdraw the claim.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3884722677ae.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by esdad71


I will answer your questions directly. I would appreciate reciprocity.

A few questions

1. Why would a JASSM damage the WTC but not a much larger airliner as hit?
2. Multiple strikes would have resulted in multiple bursts as well as removing the top of the WTC. You do know what these missiles are designed to do, right, or are you copying and pasting without research again?
3. Watch this to see what they are designed to do...

www.youtube.com...

4. Just like physical proof of demolitions, there is not ONE picture of a missile hitting ANY buildings that day. None.
5. Where are the people from those planes that did not exist?

1. JASSM Missiles are designed to penetrate hardened targets. Jets are designed to fly through the air.
2. Multiple strikes can all be electronically timed to detonate simultaneously, detonating pre-planted napalm.
3: This video further supports my position, and detracts from yours.
4. I consider this in my Green Screen Magic thread, which I might add, was immediately shut down by the admins after BoneZ, a representative from AE 911 Truth, complained.
5. I'll let you figure this one out.

reply to post by hooper


Well.. not really the end of the story.
I am pretty satisfied with the story of what happened.. just how it came to happen is the question AND the thing that would really satisfy me is if some other pentagon footage came out. I know that half second clip is not the only footage of it from that day. Too many cameras have to be pointed at the building and too many tourists.

Why would they even have such a low tech low frame rate camera pointed at the pentagon the symbol of American security and defense? That's really been my only problem with the whole thing. I'm not much of a 9/11 theorist but that is a very annoying and concerning aspect.

(edit to add.. hooper you probably wont see this, I really need to start looking how long threads are before I reply to something I read on the first page.. eh we all have our faults I guess)

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by pteridine

 

Let me restate my position:.


I submit they prove a plane could not possibly have caused the damage, therefore you must withdraw the claim.

You think a plane could not possibly have caused the damage and so I have to withdraw my claim. What a fine, logical argument sure to win converts to your theory.

I submit that JASSM missiles couldn't possibly cause the damage, therefore you must admit your theory has no basis.

JASSM's do not do their damage with wings and those aluminum wings do not account for bent columns. JASSM warheads are not filled with thousands of gallons of jet fuel and do not account for the fireballs and subsequent fires.

Try to explain how the JASSM can do what was done. Address the column damage and explain how the JASSM wings cut and bent steel columns. Explain the source of the fireballs on impact. Your theory is done.

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by esdad71

 

I will answer your questions directly. I would appreciate reciprocity.

A few questions

1. Why would a JASSM damage the WTC but not a much larger airliner as hit?
2. Multiple strikes would have resulted in multiple bursts as well as removing the top of the WTC. You do know what these missiles are designed to do, right, or are you copying and pasting without research again?
3. Watch this to see what they are designed to do...

www.youtube.com...

4. Just like physical proof of demolitions, there is not ONE picture of a missile hitting ANY buildings that day. None.
5. Where are the people from those planes that did not exist?

1. JASSM Missiles are designed to penetrate hardened targets. Jets are designed to fly through the air.
2. Multiple strikes can all be electronically timed to detonate simultaneously, detonating pre-planted napalm.
3: This video further supports my position, and detracts from yours.
4. I consider this in my Green Screen Magic thread, which I might add, was immediately shut down by the admins after BoneZ, a representative from AE 911 Truth, complained.
5. I'll let you figure this one out.

I did not ask what they do, I asked why they would damage them and a plane would not? The sheer mass of the planes wings is what caused the damage to the outer core. I am aware that multiple strikes could be made but how can you hide 5-10 JASSM missiles? You could not. You cannot green screen reality.

The video shows the damage that they cause and if there were 5 strikes there would be 5 separate explosions. You speak as if you can launch 5 JASSM's and they will all impact at the same time. So, who makes that 5 JASSM launcher...

It is not up to me to figure it out, it is up to you to complete your theory. If you want to open the door, you have to know all angles which you do not. You vidoes and weblinks are drying up if you cannot answer a simple questions about where the passengers went. I know where they went. They would up on buildings blocks away.

Yankee451, I'm still not convinced a plane shaped object didn't hit the buildings. I don't even think it's much of an argument compared to other discrepancies.

What is your avatar?

Originally posted by gentledissident
Yankee451, I'm still not convinced a plane shaped object didn't hit the buildings. I don't even think it's much of an argument compared to other discrepancies.

What is your avatar?

If plane wings could slice the structural steel of the towers, they could be used for penetrating bunkers and then there would be no need for missiles.

Aside from that fact, the discrepancy of the dents on the left side of the gash is substantial enough to disprove planes, and can be much better explained by missiles.

My avatar is a photo of the towers under construction with the sun rising behind them, layered over an image of a nuclear explosion

Notice that the towers are capped, and the walls are in place, yet the sun shines through where there should be floors. There are other construction photos as well that show more of the same. They didn't need all the floors installed to finish the towers.

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by pteridine

 

Let me restate my position:.


I submit they prove a plane could not possibly have caused the damage, therefore you must withdraw the claim.

You think a plane could not possibly have caused the damage and so I have to withdraw my claim. What a fine, logical argument sure to win converts to your theory.

I submit that JASSM missiles couldn't possibly cause the damage, therefore you must admit your theory has no basis.

JASSM's do not do their damage with wings and those aluminum wings do not account for bent columns. JASSM warheads are not filled with thousands of gallons of jet fuel and do not account for the fireballs and subsequent fires.

Try to explain how the JASSM can do what was done. Address the column damage and explain how the JASSM wings cut and bent steel columns. Explain the source of the fireballs on impact. Your theory is done.

I am offering an alternative and better explanation for YOUR claim.

You claim a jet can cause the dents on the LEFT SIDE of the columns without damaging the RIGHT side, even though the RIGHT side would have been struck first, considering the swept back wings of a 767.

THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY TO EXPLAIN THE DENTS IS WITH A LEFT-TO-RIGHT MOTION.

Therefore, a projectile must have been traveling in that direction, clearly eliminating a jet.

On the one hand you claim a jets wings can cut the steel, yet on the other hand you're claiming a missile's wings cannot. Get it straight, or better yet, let me do it for you.

The wings did not cut the steel. They cut the aluminum cladding and the fire retardant, providing the gash for the wing tip of the plane shaped hole. After snapping off the wing against the aluminum, the sturdiest part of the missile wing would be impacting the tower just before the nose.

This is clearly demonstrated in the images above.

I repeat...

Your claim of a 35 degree swept back wing causing damage to the LEFT of the columns is impossible. That is your claim, either explain how that damage is more consistent with a swept back wing sawing from the right, rather than a missile striking from the left, or withdraw it.

An honest man would withdraw the claim.