Len Colby Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 This one is really strange...aluminum vs steel...and aluminum wins.Jack Through two steel walls and a steel core...and emerges unscathed, WHATEVER it is. The material being ejected from the tower is most probablly dust which is why is quickly disipates in the video Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 This is the strangest event of all, SINCE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE according to laws of physics.Planes CRASH into steel buildings; they do not MELT into them. Am I wrong? This is the event that gives rise to NO PLANE theories, since it is impossible for a REAL airplane to do this. Untruthers here will come up with something, however, like Jack does not understand photogrammetry...yeah, that's the ticket. Jack is misinterpreting the photo because he is not an official photoanalyst and just doesn't know how airplanes crash; he probably has never seen a plane crash, much less one hitting an all steel wall...yeah, that's the ticket! Jack Truthers are a funny bunch. On one hand they complain that a 757 should have left a whole larger than it’s wing span when crashing into a bomb proof wall And on the other they complain that two larger planes ( 767s) didn’t breakup when hitting weaker walls (the WTC towers) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 (edited) Bet you never heard that hurricane ERIN, bigger than Katrina, was headed toward NYC on September 11, 1991. That is because there was a seeming blackout of news of the hurricane for some reason. Wonder why. Jack Edited July 23, 2008 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 This is the strangest event of all, SINCE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE according to laws of physics.Planes CRASH into steel buildings; they do not MELT into them. Am I wrong? This is the event that gives rise to NO PLANE theories, since it is impossible for a REAL airplane to do this. Untruthers here will come up with something, however, like Jack does not understand photogrammetry...yeah, that's the ticket. Jack is misinterpreting the photo because he is not an official photoanalyst and just doesn't know how airplanes crash; he probably has never seen a plane crash, much less one hitting an all steel wall...yeah, that's the ticket! Jack Truthers are a funny bunch. On one hand they complain that a 757 should have left a whole larger than it’s wing span when crashing into a bomb proof wall And on the other they complain that two larger planes ( 767s) didn’t breakup when hitting weaker walls (the WTC towers) Please cite a reference that steel walls of the WTC towers were "weaker" than the masonry walls of the Pentagon. I'm sure you have one, since you require that of others. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 This is the strangest event of all, SINCE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE according to laws of physics.Planes CRASH into steel buildings; they do not MELT into them. Am I wrong? This is the event that gives rise to NO PLANE theories, since it is impossible for a REAL airplane to do this. Untruthers here will come up with something, however, like Jack does not understand photogrammetry...yeah, that's the ticket. Jack is misinterpreting the photo because he is not an official photoanalyst and just doesn't know how airplanes crash; he probably has never seen a plane crash, much less one hitting an all steel wall...yeah, that's the ticket! Jack Jack, Jack, get a 'grip on yourself'! Remember on 9/11/2001 the laws of Physics and logical cause and effect were suspended [by order of the officials in charge!]. Everyone knows aluminum is stronger than steel and the core [let alone the outer support beams] of the WTC were NO match for a large jetliner [despite the building being designed specifically to withstand MULTIPLE plane hits!]....so it is just logic. American government can never be wrong - 'God has an American passport and is on our side!'...so you must be mistaken and the debunker/provacateurs must be correct......'god and country' [and rule by Oligarchy] are on their side...even if ethics, logic and physics are not..... "Jack.....so you must be mistaken....." Finally a morsel of truth from Lemkin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 You know, I do finding both amusing yet tiring the claims made by some posters on this Forum. Let me explain: - Who are the people who mostly (if not always) complain about the behaviour of other posters? - Who are the people who mostly (if not always) complain that they are being victimised? - Who are the people who mostly (if not always) intimate that some posters should be removed because they are disruptive? - Who are the people who mostly refuse to debate topics or answer direct questions because they claim others to be some type of disinformation agents? - Who are the people who mostly use emotively negative labels about others (fascist, provocateur, etc)? Now, conversely: - Who are the people who mostly (if not always) provide references for their claims or statements? - Who are the people who mostly (if not always) are prepared to debate their claims? - Who are the people who mostly (if not always) always welcome another person into the debate? - Who are the people who mostly (if not always) are prepared to admit if they have made mistakes or have been proven incorrect? I know who I find open-minded and who I don't; I know who I find hypocritical and who I don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 Jan, If you think the post is against Forum rules, you should report it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 This is the strangest event of all, SINCE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE according to laws of physics.Planes CRASH into steel buildings; they do not MELT into them. Am I wrong? This is the event that gives rise to NO PLANE theories, since it is impossible for a REAL airplane to do this. Untruthers here will come up with something, however, like Jack does not understand photogrammetry...yeah, that's the ticket. Jack is misinterpreting the photo because he is not an official photoanalyst and just doesn't know how airplanes crash; he probably has never seen a plane crash, much less one hitting an all steel wall...yeah, that's the ticket! Jack Jack, Jack, get a 'grip on yourself'! Remember on 9/11/2001 the laws of Physics and logical cause and effect were suspended [by order of the officials in charge!]. Everyone knows aluminum is stronger than steel and the core [let alone the outer support beams] of the WTC were NO match for a large jetliner [despite the building being designed specifically to withstand MULTIPLE plane hits!]....so it is just logic. American government can never be wrong - 'God has an American passport and is on our side!'...so you must be mistaken and the debunker/provacateurs must be correct......'god and country' [and rule by Oligarchy] are on their side...even if ethics, logic and physics are not..... "Jack.....so you must be mistaken....." Finally a morsel of truth from Lemkin. Lamson does not comprehend a satirical tongue-in-cheek jab in the eye. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 This is the strangest event of all, SINCE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE according to laws of physics.Planes CRASH into steel buildings; they do not MELT into them. Am I wrong? This is the event that gives rise to NO PLANE theories, since it is impossible for a REAL airplane to do this. Untruthers here will come up with something, however, like Jack does not understand photogrammetry...yeah, that's the ticket. Jack is misinterpreting the photo because he is not an official photoanalyst and just doesn't know how airplanes crash; he probably has never seen a plane crash, much less one hitting an all steel wall...yeah, that's the ticket! Jack Jack, I lost the url to this video - can you repost it, if you have handy. Ignore the angry untruthers out there. Even if their information was reliable [it mostly is NOT], their smug and almost uniformly nasty put-down attitudes really are meant to degrade the level of research and attempts at the truth on this Forum. There are basicly two types of threads on this [and other] Forums - positive and negative ones. The positive ones [usually minus the involvement of our standard trolls] while they meander and sometimes involve some heated debate and differences, DO provide for an exchange of information and opinion and an honest attempt to narrow-in on the truth. The negative threads [almost always involving a few I could name, but we all know all too well!] decend [planned, IMO] into angry accusations, innuendo, debunking for the sake of debunking; ad homs; provocations for the sake of provocations and nothing new. They are as negative as the entities they try to; are paid to [or out of naivete] protect. Very sad. The most powerful nation in the world is in moral, economic and political crisis and these morally deficients [i'm being polite] don't try to come to a positive critical analysis - but to destroy all other's attempts at same. [iMO] Further, they deny there is a difference in an attack on another forum member or their post and a defense [no matter how upset] at an attack. But then they are like the Nation and people they defend. You can attack someone and then blame them for defending themselves - Vietnam; Iraq....the list is endless..... So many, many good researchers and thinkers listed as 'members' on this Forum have left more or less permanently due to the hostility and provocation of a few. Very sad. Peter...this is a website I found just yesterday...very clear big videos of the impact of the second tower...I liked this one best, but there are others. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kn6TY7WBFBc Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 This is the strangest event of all, SINCE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE according to laws of physics.Planes CRASH into steel buildings; they do not MELT into them. Am I wrong? This is the event that gives rise to NO PLANE theories, since it is impossible for a REAL airplane to do this. Untruthers here will come up with something, however, like Jack does not understand photogrammetry...yeah, that's the ticket. Jack is misinterpreting the photo because he is not an official photoanalyst and just doesn't know how airplanes crash; he probably has never seen a plane crash, much less one hitting an all steel wall...yeah, that's the ticket! Jack It appears that more and more "untruthers" are piling on here. Peter, thanks for that excellent article. Very impressive group of people, hard to dismiss these folks as "conspiracy waccos", but the supporters of the official conspiracy theory will just ignore them. Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 This is the strangest event of all, SINCE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE according to laws of physics.Planes CRASH into steel buildings; they do not MELT into them. Am I wrong? This is the event that gives rise to NO PLANE theories, since it is impossible for a REAL airplane to do this. Untruthers here will come up with something, however, like Jack does not understand photogrammetry...yeah, that's the ticket. Jack is misinterpreting the photo because he is not an official photoanalyst and just doesn't know how airplanes crash; he probably has never seen a plane crash, much less one hitting an all steel wall...yeah, that's the ticket! Jack It appears that more and more "untruthers" are piling on here. Peter, thanks for that excellent article. Very impressive group of people, hard to dismiss these folks as "conspiracy waccos", but the supporters of the official conspiracy theory will just ignore them. Dawn "hard to dismiss these folks as "conspiracy waccos" Why is it hard to dismiss them? Because they have a rank behind their name? Like a true CT , you look at something that mirrors your worldview and call it positive. Being an lawyer one would have thought you would see that the remarks by this group resemble nothing but opinion and not supported by any fact.. I guess I was wrong. Since when did a ct ever bother with fact..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 This is the strangest event of all, SINCE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE according to laws of physics.Planes CRASH into steel buildings; they do not MELT into them. Am I wrong? This is the event that gives rise to NO PLANE theories, since it is impossible for a REAL airplane to do this. Untruthers here will come up with something, however, like Jack does not understand photogrammetry...yeah, that's the ticket. Jack is misinterpreting the photo because he is not an official photoanalyst and just doesn't know how airplanes crash; he probably has never seen a plane crash, much less one hitting an all steel wall...yeah, that's the ticket! Jack Jack, Jack, get a 'grip on yourself'! Remember on 9/11/2001 the laws of Physics and logical cause and effect were suspended [by order of the officials in charge!]. Everyone knows aluminum is stronger than steel and the core [let alone the outer support beams] of the WTC were NO match for a large jetliner [despite the building being designed specifically to withstand MULTIPLE plane hits!]....so it is just logic. American government can never be wrong - 'God has an American passport and is on our side!'...so you must be mistaken and the debunker/provacateurs must be correct......'god and country' [and rule by Oligarchy] are on their side...even if ethics, logic and physics are not..... "Jack.....so you must be mistaken....." Finally a morsel of truth from Lemkin. Lamson does not comprehend a satirical tongue-in-cheek jab in the eye. Jack Nor does Jack it seem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 This is the strangest event of all, SINCE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE according to laws of physics.Planes CRASH into steel buildings; they do not MELT into them. Am I wrong? This is the event that gives rise to NO PLANE theories, since it is impossible for a REAL airplane to do this. Untruthers here will come up with something, however, like Jack does not understand photogrammetry...yeah, that's the ticket. Jack is misinterpreting the photo because he is not an official photoanalyst and just doesn't know how airplanes crash; he probably has never seen a plane crash, much less one hitting an all steel wall...yeah, that's the ticket! Jack "Untruthers here will come up with something, however, like Jack does not understand photogrammetry...yeah, that's the ticket. Jack is misinterpreting the photo because he is not an official photoanalyst and just doesn't know how airplanes crash; he probably has never seen a plane crash, much less one hitting an all steel wall...yeah, that's the ticket! " Jack, your inability to understand even the basic tenents of photography is well documented. Your inability to analyse photographic images is well documented. You have YOURSELF cast your reputation into the dustbin. Don't blame anyone else.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 (edited) Much as it is tempting to respond in kind I won’t debase the forum by stooping to your level. I am not at all surprised you identify with Drago you are “flour from the same sack” as they say in Brazil – you inability to make a cogent argument in favor of your position is more than made up for by your vituperative tendency to insult and attack those who hold opposing viewpoints. How ironic that Jack who continuously complains of such attacks although he is rarely a victim of them applauded you. 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! Actually in this case I'll side with Bemas and Avery he said "I could tell I was stepping over bodies" or words to that effect but now he is changing his story again. Was he intimidated as truthers claim or are his recolections of events that morning simply unreliable? ******************************************************************************** ""I could tell I was stepping over bodies" or words to that effect...' Get it completely right, or don't bring it up at all. You were obviously looking for any lame excuse to attack me, show how the differences between my paraphrasing and his exact words affected the point I was making – namely that I though Evan was wrong and the Loose Changes (in this case) had not distorted the truth and accurately quoted Jennings. "are his recolections of events that morning simply unreliable?"And, your speculative antics leave a lot to be desired, BTW. I doubt you bothered to read through the thread, in it I documented how Jennings’ story in 2007 was very different from the one he told September 11 – 18, 20001. There’s little speculation involved. The fact that he is now back tracking IMO makes him even less reliable. I can’t tell if he is intentionally making things up or if he is simply confused. In any case he seems to have a very active imagination. If you can refute the evidence I’ve presented and will present get back us. If all you have to offer is insults expect no further replies from me. You're exactly what CD pegged you as, and probably worse. But, Simkin believes in allowing all "comers and players" equal opportunity to misinform and disinform the work here, in the name of "debate." Accuracy isn’t your forte. John clearly indicated he wants posts on this forum to be accuruate, he also indicated he wanted members to avoid making personal attacks against others. Your fail on both accounts Therefore, you'll obviously continue to spout your reams of incessant drivel, designed to intimidate other forum members, here. But, you don't fool me, or any of the others with your flagrantly enormous attitude and equally high opinion of yourself. Get a life! That you resort to personal attack rather than rebut my points speaks volumes. Your mentality seems to be limited to “X, Y and Z say what I already believe they must be correct, A, B and C are sayings I don’t believe to be true they must be wrong ****************************************************************** "Your mentality seems to be limited to “X, Y and Z say what I already believe they must be correct, A, B and C are sayings I don’t believe to be true they must be wrong..." WRONGO, BUCKO! I've read thoroughly through this thread and find your insufferable remarks to be totally unacceptable, as well. Therefore, I won't go into the many times I've witnessed a building being razed in Manhattan, or the lines of detonation, so OBVIOUSLY apparent on the Murrah Building after its attempted demolition by, supposedly one Timothy McVey. Why? Because they're at such odds with your assessment of the situation and would only serve to fuel your ridicule against any opinion that differs from the government's findings. But, your weak and impotent attacks on deductive reasoning, along with your hyperinflated assessment of your own research abilities only serves to prove that you can dish it out, but God help anyone who would choose to refute you. It's always been that way. Everybody knows it, yet as I've stated above, it only serves to prove one point. Yours, and others, which are at opposite ends of the spectrum, but become cannon fodder for you and Lamson. Both of you have always been the ones to attack first, and like a couple of rabid dogs, at that. Of course, people are going to react defensively. Yours and Lamson's condescending attitudes are designed to elicit that exact response. I'm just trying to expose your tactics for the underhanded charade they really are. Edited July 22, 2008 by Terry Mauro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 Much as it is tempting to respond in kind I won’t debase the forum by stooping to your level. I am not at all surprised you identify with Drago you are “flour from the same sack” as they say in Brazil – you inability to make a cogent argument in favor of your position is more than made up for by your vituperative tendency to insult and attack those who hold opposing viewpoints. How ironic that Jack who continuously complains of such attacks although he is rarely a victim of them applauded you. 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! Actually in this case I'll side with Bemas and Avery he said "I could tell I was stepping over bodies" or words to that effect but now he is changing his story again. Was he intimidated as truthers claim or are his recolections of events that morning simply unreliable? ******************************************************************************** ""I could tell I was stepping over bodies" or words to that effect...' Get it completely right, or don't bring it up at all. You were obviously looking for any lame excuse to attack me, show how the differences between my paraphrasing and his exact words affected the point I was making – namely that I though Evan was wrong and the Loose Changes (in this case) had not distorted the truth and accurately quoted Jennings. "are his recolections of events that morning simply unreliable?"And, your speculative antics leave a lot to be desired, BTW. I doubt you bothered to read through the thread, in it I documented how Jennings’ story in 2007 was very different from the one he told September 11 – 18, 20001. There’s little speculation involved. The fact that he is now back tracking IMO makes him even less reliable. I can’t tell if he is intentionally making things up or if he is simply confused. In any case he seems to have a very active imagination. If you can refute the evidence I’ve presented and will present get back us. If all you have to offer is insults expect no further replies from me. You're exactly what CD pegged you as, and probably worse. But, Simkin believes in allowing all "comers and players" equal opportunity to misinform and disinform the work here, in the name of "debate." Accuracy isn’t your forte. John clearly indicated he wants posts on this forum to be accuruate, he also indicated he wanted members to avoid making personal attacks against others. Your fail on both accounts Therefore, you'll obviously continue to spout your reams of incessant drivel, designed to intimidate other forum members, here. But, you don't fool me, or any of the others with your flagrantly enormous attitude and equally high opinion of yourself. Get a life! That you resort to personal attack rather than rebut my points speaks volumes. Your mentality seems to be limited to “X, Y and Z say what I already believe they must be correct, A, B and C are sayings I don’t believe to be true they must be wrong ****************************************************************** "Your mentality seems to be limited to “X, Y and Z say what I already believe they must be correct, A, B and C are sayings I don’t believe to be true they must be wrong..." WRONGO, BUCKO! I've read thoroughly through this thread and find your insufferable remarks to be totally unacceptable, as well. Therefore, I won't go into the many times I've witnessed a building being razed in Manhattan, or the lines of detonation, so OBVIOUSLY apparent on the Murrah Building after its attempted demolition by, supposedly one Timothy McVey. Why? Because they're at such odds with your assessment of the situation and would only serve to fuel your ridicule against any opinion that differs from the government's findings. But, your weak and impotent attacks on deductive reasoning, along with your hyperinflated assessment of your own research abilities only serves to prove that you can dish it out, but God help anyone who would choose to refute you. It's always been that way. Everybody knows it, yet as I've stated above, it only serves to prove one point. Yours, and others, which are at opposite ends of the spectrum, but become cannon fodder for you and Lamson. Both of you have always been the ones to attack first, and like a couple of rabid dogs, at that. Of course, people are going to react defensively. Yours and Lamson's condescending attitudes are designed to elicit that exact response. I'm just trying to expose your tactics for the underhanded charade they really are. Tisk. tisk BUCKO! If you can't refute the evidence, attack. Thats pretty much your standard response BUCKO! At least this one was not laced with the profanity that is so common in your rants. I guess we can be thankful for that at least. 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