This guy admits something big, but falls short, why?

originally posted by: SLAYER69
I rarely if ever get involved in this forum but AlphaHawk made his case clear in his counter attack rebuttal to Agent_USA_Supporter posted opinion.

The rest has simply deteriorated into crying foul and claiming victim.

Your defensive into the events of 9/11 and the way your attacking without attacking my points makes my points stand. Not to mention your both using GOVERNMENT BASED sources to back your claims, the same ones that lied about WTC 7.

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed

originally posted by: Agent_USA_Supporter

I guess in your world bin laden did it and planes brought the STEEL TOWERS ALL IN A FEW SECONDS Which is impossible and impossible for fires to create Molten Steel which again was covered up as usual.

Why do you think it needs "molten steel"? No one said that the steel was molten or needed to be "molten".
Would you deny that an almost full tank of jet fuel CAN weaken steal...and would you deny that it is (as you say) "impossible" that a damaged structure, about 25% of the entire tower, can collapse, and then result in a chain reaction due to the weight falling down on each floor? What about this is "impossible"?
It would be much more impossible if 25% of a tower would come down and floors would be magically able to hold this enormous weight. THIS would be impossible, 100% and absolutely impossible.

wow really? an full tank of jet fuel CAN weaken steel for the first time in aviation history can weaken steel? and i am quite sure WTC 7 building was simply brought down by fires.

originally posted by: SLAYER69

originally posted by: Another_Nut
They magically held the towers up for what 30 + years.

Magic

Is there even a point to that?

Making 2 plane crashes result in the global symetrical collapse of three buildings?

Magic

BS, They collapsed and made a huge pile of twisted and smashed debris strewn about.

The fire in the 70s that burnt out like four floors but didnt result in collapse even though I believe there was no fireproofing

Magic

Fails to mention the thousands of gallons of jet fuel or the massive gaping holes nor the massive tonnage above said hole caused by the jets nor any secondary affects of the impacts on structural integrity by before mentioned jets impacts etc etc etc.

Making two 110 story buildings collapse into a pile less than the height of the lobby

Magic

The only thing magical is your inability to explore some simple facts and information readily available which have been brought out by those that have legitimate concerns/questions and do not buy the official story.

Which by the way, often run contrary to the supposed questionable angles your poor attempt at raising regarding the days events

BS, They collapsed and made a huge pile of twisted and smashed debris strewn about.

In Magically at Free Fall and in Seconds compared to other collapses of other buildings in history.


Is there even a point to that?
World Trade Centers were build to withstand airliner crashes even an Boeing airliner, i see your trying to avoid that fact.

The Designers of the WTC said it themselves.

Fails to mention the thousands of gallons of jet fuel or the massive gaping holes nor the massive tonnage above said hole caused by the jets nor any secondary affects of the impacts on structural integrity by before mentioned jets impacts etc etc etc.

The fact that the people whom were trapped there at the gaping holes bulls a hole into that theory plus the gaping holes looked smaller for that of an Boeing airliner.




by those that have legitimate concerns/questions and do not buy the official story.
Where i have heard this again?

a reply to: scubagravy

Prove there were no windows. I've posted multiple high resolution pictures taken from much closer than any video or picture of United 175 on that day and you have a hard time seeing the windows. From over a half mile away, there is no chance in hell of seeing them in low resolution pixilated screen caps from a video, or even a still photo, unless they're reflecting sunlight.

What payload? That was the center wing box join point and wheel well for the main landing gear.

a reply to: Zaphod58 So, you seriously believe the official story Zaphod? you surprise me.

a reply to: scubagravy

I didn't say that. I believe they were commercial aircraft as described, because I haven't seen good solid evidence to the contrary.

a reply to: Zaphod58 big plane small whole pentagon ?

a reply to: scubagravy

Not so big plane, with lots of wide open spaces. The 757 fuselage is only something like 44 feet in diameter. The wings wouldn't have penetrated because they're basically open fuel tanks. They're strong, but only for the ways they're stressed.

a reply to: scubagravy
Thanks for posting. He seems genuine and has an interesting story. My spidey sense started tingling a bit on "I had cameras in my pockets - I don't want to get into that." Aside from that, I thought he was a pretty credible witness. Interested to see if anything comes of his pictures.

How surreal it would be to catch the plane as it screams into your building...what's strapped there underneath it?

Pictures by a tourist? Was he working there at the time?

PTSD takes your wheels off, he has been shut-down for "eleven years now". Everybody is depressed...'pics or it didn't happen.' It's been 13 years now.

Obviously some--->body wanted our wheels to come off;

Is recent policy put forward meant to fix our wheels, or to keep us invalidated?

Those same wings that tore thru wtc 1 and 2?

Double . Whoops

originally posted by: Another_Nut
Those same wings that tore thru wtc 1 and 2?

Reply to zaph

I fear this is just more disinfo. If there was any real damning evidence in his pics, they would have already been confiscated. Guess we'll have to wait and see.

This pic hangs in my house. It's signed by the photographer Igor Maloratsky. There's a little backstory to this photograph, but it's not material to the discussion.

originally posted by: Agent_USA_Supporter

2. To This day only footage remains of the WTC 1 alleged airliner hitting the WTC 1.

That's only because you refuse to believe anything else other than what YOU believe. There is plenty of footage of both towers being hit by planes.

Now if you bring up WTC 7, I may just listen.

a reply to: Another_Nut

Apples and oranges, and they didn't "tear through" the towers.

The Pentagon was reinforced, kevlar lined concrete, the towers were steel, with nothing backing it.

When the planes hit the towers, the columns failed where they are joined. You can see in the close up picture of the impact area that the beams are bent inward. They failed at the rivets and bent into the building, they weren't "torn through".

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Another_Nut

Apples and oranges, and they didn't "tear through" the towers.

The Pentagon was reinforced, kevlar lined concrete, the towers were steel, with nothing backing it.

When the planes hit the towers, the columns failed where they are joined. You can see in the close up picture of the impact area that the beams are bent inward. They failed at the rivets and bent into the building, they weren't "torn through".

3 sections of the pentagon were penetrated by a 12 foot cylindrical object according to the pics I've seen. In videos I watched the wings punch holes through double-layered tubular steel beams and blow the back half of the building apart. If the wings ain't gonna punch through the pentagon walls, they should be in a big heaping burning pile in clear view, next to the tail section that would not fit in that 12 foot hole.

Why did the same physics we were raised on not occur that day?

It cant be apples and oranges since they are both wings

Wings hitting concrete = wings sheered off and disintegrate due to them being gas tanks that are weak

Wings hitting steel = wings sheering through due to them being gas tanks that are weak

They both hit buildings at the same relative point. Namely nose first

Sorry zaph u have made me rethink parts of 9/11 in the past but to say that the wings are open fuel tanks that are strong only when stressed the right way means if stressed the wrong way they are weak.

Is plowing into buildings a right or wrong stress

If its wrong then its wrong for both towers and the pentagon

You cant have it both ways

Eta a pic of the wing damage. It looks like the wings ,almost to the tips, managed to cut through the steel columns.

ts4.mm.bing.net...

a reply to: N3k9Ni



Yes that about sums it up.

originally posted by: ShadowLink
I hope this guy is legit and I hate to be "that" guy but...

Something is off with his story.
"Cameras in my pockets"
Also, he makes it sound like he heard the plane just before impact, yet he turned to see it and claims to have pictures of it just before, during and after impact?

As I said though, I really hope this guy or someone else can bring forth some new pictures or evidence. It's WAY past time some heads rolled for this crime!

Didn't we kill Usama Bin Laden?
Why yes. Yes we did. Good Lord this is still such a farce to me. Thirteen years later and these ahem... truthers...ahem... still haven't proven a thing and still folks hold on. Gotta believe in all and every conspiracy out there. I'm naming you all Jerry.