Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Poll questions added.

***************************************************

Where do we cast our vote?

O.K. I found it.

Edited by Terry Mauro
Link to post
Share on other sites
As is to be expected, Burton never presents research...only "debunking".

Jack

If correcting inaccurate material is my only contribution, then I am satisfied.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites
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 by Evan Burton
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites
Pancakes, anyone?

Jackpost-667-1216429318.jpg

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 by Len Colby
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...