Evan Burton Posted July 20, 2008 Share Posted July 20, 2008 Craig,I consider that last post to be a personal attack and have made it invisible. I'll alert other mods and see if they agree. Please do NOT make such posts - address the issues raised, please. First and only warning. Thank you. I DID address the issue as posted by Lemkin. Did his post not suggest that those who did not believe the TRUTHER claims had simple minds? In my mind at least, given this warning, Lemkins post borders on a personal insult not only to you, where it was aimed, but at anyone not conforming to Lemkins world view. I'll gladly abide by the mods ruling. Rereading it, I see what you mean. Other mods agree. I'll restore your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted July 20, 2008 Share Posted July 20, 2008 This one is really strange...aluminum vs steel...and aluminum wins.Jack Okay Jack - so how do you explain an aircraft fuselage appearing out the other side of the building? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 20, 2008 Share Posted July 20, 2008 The mystery lobby explosion photo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 20, 2008 Share Posted July 20, 2008 This one is really strange...aluminum vs steel...and aluminum wins.Jack Okay Jack - so how do you explain an aircraft fuselage appearing out the other side of the building? It is not up to me to "explain"; I am just saying it is a strange oddity in the official record. But it is clearly impossible. Window openings were about 24", much too narrow for the plane to enter and leave apparently INTACT...to say nothing of the massive steel central core of the building. You explain it, since you are defending the official record. I have no answer. I want someone to give answers. I just ask questions. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 20, 2008 Share Posted July 20, 2008 The melted bus on West Broadway on 9-11. Note the fires in Building 5, but NO fires in Building 7. Apparently this is right after both towers fell. What caused the bus to melt in the street, apparently where it was abandoned by driver and passengers? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted July 20, 2008 Share Posted July 20, 2008 (edited) You explain it, since you are defending the official record. I have no answer. I want someone to give answers. I just ask questions.Jack I did - but you won't listen to answers. You just ask questions - and then stop listening. Edited July 20, 2008 by Evan Burton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 20, 2008 Share Posted July 20, 2008 This one is really strange...aluminum vs steel...and aluminum wins.Jack Okay Jack - so how do you explain an aircraft fuselage appearing out the other side of the building? OK...here is an imaginative theory about this. Go to this website. It is as good a theory as any. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted July 20, 2008 Share Posted July 20, 2008 So they also say it is not a missile... but have no explanation for it. If on the other hand it were part of the engine (most likely the the main core), it matches expected behavior, it follows the ballistic path expected of such an object, and - what a surprise - the remains of an engine (matching the type used on the aircraft) are found about where the ballistic path would take it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 20, 2008 Share Posted July 20, 2008 So they also say it is not a missile... but have no explanation for it.If on the other hand it were part of the engine (most likely the the main core), it matches expected behavior, it follows the ballistic path expected of such an object, and - what a surprise - the remains of an engine (matching the type used on the aircraft) are found about where the ballistic path would take it. You obviously did not go to the website and read the article and his theory. Your reply is based only on the portion I copied. The URL is there on the screenshot if you look for it. Report back after you read what he says. His theory may surprise you. It surprised me. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted July 20, 2008 Share Posted July 20, 2008 It did surprise me - the explanation is bordering on the ridiculous. So instead of an aircraft simply hitting the building, he's saying it's a remote control aircraft with sensors that triggered an ejection of a pod of parts from the other side of the building? In any event, the issue of the 'missile' ejected from the corner of WTC2 has given me cause to rethink my interpretation of the 'pod' and the burst of flame it produced. I now consider it possible (and I am prepared to put it no more strongly than that) that the burst of flame played a crucial role in setting off the sequence of explosions — and the ejection of the 'missile' — that followed the impact. On the morning of September 11 the southern wall of WTC2 may have been scanned by infrared sensors wired to a computerized detonation system. The heat from the burst of flame may have triggered the activation of this system, ensuring the timely eruption of the dazzling pyrotechnic display that followed. Since we know that over the weekend prior to 9-11 the South Tower was subjected to a prolonged 'power down' during which much intensive and undocumented work took place, there was certainly ample opportunity to install such a system. I may be straying well into the realms of science fiction here, but it is nevertheless a result only of the examination and analysis of all the rather excellent evidence that is available. http://www.serendipity.li/wot/spencer06.htm Ain't that the truth; surely there must be a UFO and a laser beam in the tale somewhere...? The "evidence" of engine pods in the enlarged, low resolution photos of the building is laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted July 20, 2008 Share Posted July 20, 2008 It seems that Barry Jennings didn't see dead bodies, etc. Seems that the Loose (with the truth) Change crowd decided to interpret things differently that Jennings intended. He stepped over people - not dead people, just people (probably awaiting movement to another area). Barry Jennings WITHDREW his permission for the interview to be used because they (LC) were distorting the truth! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 20, 2008 Share Posted July 20, 2008 (edited) Pancakes, anyone?Jack Jack you have obviously never bothered to read the NIST report because it never said there was a pancake collapse. It is believed there was a progressive collapse in which the falling mass of the collapsing floors caused the connection of the floors below them to fail. No one but truthers says the floors should have remained intact. Several engineers including ones from China, Canada, MIT, Cambridge and Northwestern concluded there was a lot of energy leftover the Canadian and English ones specifically calculated there was enough to destroy the floors. Edited July 20, 2008 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 20, 2008 Share Posted July 20, 2008 (edited) You "no wind change" advocates can "debate" all you want.Here are the photos. Jack (the photo is not attaching...I will keep trying...I finally changed the file name and it attached) So how exactly did you determine the smoke in this photo is blowing over the Statue of Liberty which is way off camera? How did you detrmine the direction was south rather than SE or SSE. Even IF it were true this would only be a change of 15 - 45 degrees or so. Edited July 20, 2008 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 20, 2008 Share Posted July 20, 2008 (edited) NIST lists fires in Building 7 "inferno". Jack Jack this is getting beyond silly. Please cite where it was officially said there was fire on every floor. I think perhaps 1 or 2 firemen said that not a big contradiction between `all` and several since heavy smoke obscured the south facade and the floors on fire tended to be lower down. Witness testimony is 100% reliable. Edited July 20, 2008 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 20, 2008 Share Posted July 20, 2008 (edited) The falacy of the govt "pancake theory". Jack Provide a citation for you claim the core should have been free standing. Also the core columns didn't occupy 1/3 the floor space that was the approximate area of the core. Edited July 20, 2008 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now