compartmentalization. without even a basic understanding of how intelligence services use this, you can not talk intelligently about them.
have any of you actually changed beliefs?
questioning claims is not a belief system. skepticism is not a belief system, but a toolkit. too many skeptics are too liberal with their judgement too quickly to befit skepticism.
lastly, it seems literally not a single one of you debunker types has considered that the nonsense claims of conspiracy theorists can be manufactured by people other than conspiracy theorists.
ps: the narrative the mainstream is pushing about aurora is clownshoes. why did holmes have two fucking iphones, one only for taking pictures of the theater and of himself with funny contacts?
pps: the official theory of 9/11 is clownshoes. fuck nist, and fuck you if you think they did enough to declare incontrovertible truth without even testing for explosives, which was and still is a lawfully mandated standard procedure of investigation. the evidence of the towers was also criminally disposed of by shipping it overseas as quickly as possible for melting. what fuckwit would sign off on that? if you were a detective assigned to a case and disposed of evidence you'd be canned, at least.
hey, but good luck with your conspiracy free belief system supported and encouraged by any and all establishment agents.
i agree with the first half of your saying at least until you talk about "clown shoes"
My tool kit is no different than yours I'm just coming to different conclusions and I want to know why. I just wanna know are these the kind of people that see any event take place and think "there's something behind this and its the government" or do you look thought the evidence and see.
what conspiracies are in support or and which do you deny?
and PPS? Please don't get angry no need to say "fuck you" to me I'm just asking questions if you have a problem with that then ignore me.
And lawfully mandated? where I'm not saying it isn't but where is that stated that during a building collapse? terrorist attack? plane crash? its mandated to test for explosives? or just any general investigation?
and sending the materials overseas quickly I've never looked into that but my initial thinking is maybe safety for the NYC population, the building was full of asbestos so something had to be done about that, on top of that where should they have kept the materials? on a barge? 5th ave? 6th ave? its NYC not a storage yard.
Why did you post this here? Why not r/conspiritard?
Why are you so angry?
Plenty of people change their opinions about things after learning new facts. If you wanted to share that with us, please be respectful about it. If you were you might actually sway people to your side of the argument.
I wasn't angry in anything i said, if you think i was being I'm sorry you feel that. I just want to know why it is when ever i make a comment in support of anything in r/conspiracy that is factual against the conspiracy I'm just told "your brain washed" "you need to look at the "facts"" or "your wrong"
to me this r/conspiracy is more of a fanfiction group what kinda scenario can you think of and support with any evidence.
I got the feeling you were angry from some of the language choices.
I guarantee you will find respectful replies if you frame your initial post differently.
Instead of telling us, "you are wrong because of [insert evidence]" you should ask us "what does this [insert evidence] mean in relation to this conspiracy?"
The difference is between asking and telling. Any statement can be framed as a question. I had to do exactly that last week when I was wondering about WTC7.
Just like any subreddit there will be rude assholes, but if you respectfully ask a question you will likely find other respectful people willing to have an actual mature argument about it.
Don't give up on this subreddit we're not all douchebags.
Well people always will get passionate and defensive about this stuff. Any good conspiracy theorist will try to disprove his own theory. That is the only way to fill in all the gaps and get a complete picture of what happened. If you don't believe in the conspiracy and want the opinions of people who do you should approach it though you do believe it but just want clarification on specific things that don't add up. It's not likely that anyone will change their beliefs about this stuff from yours, or anyone's comments here but you can bring certain points about them to light.
Just like how if you don't believe in god but want to go talk to r/christianity about it you will find more responses by saying I think I believe in god but I'm not sure because of such and such. Get them to poke holes in their own beliefs. Or find the answers you weren't aware of and possibly change your own beliefs.
For example, if you believe a plane did hit the Pentagon, but you want to debate it with us here, ask "okay if it was not a plane, then what was it? A cruise missile? Okay where was that fired from? Under who's orders?" etc. All without being provocative, just looking for honest answers to questions. Like someone who just moved to the US and didn't even know 9/11 ever happened until today. When people can't come up with an answer, that's a hole in the story right there. And they should either realize that, or be polite and say well that information has not been revealed to anyone yet.
Having said all that, this subreddit has some of the worst circlejerking I've ever seen and I don't blame you for getting frustrated with us.
Our thread below has gotten so long that reddit will not let me see your post to reply to it!
and I agree lets go one step at a time, the system you and I have used is too scattered to get the responses we both would like.
Ok, thank you. By the way, that's not a system.
The fire ball: It looks to me that the plane impacted the building and exploded during the impact, the wings were destroyed allowing the fuel to ignite in the building, along with the the plane was traveling at high speed, the fuel in the wings was traveling as fast as the plan, and would continue traveling out thought the building after the crash.
Simply: The fuel kept going in the straight line out the other side of the building.
Ok, so if I can summarize what I think you said:
The kerosene fuel was travelling 600mph before the impact with WTC 2
Momentum is conserved, we both know from physics
The explosion spread out rapidly and horizontally because the fuel had a lot of momentum.
I am going to go along with that explanation for a few posts here. I don't necessarily disagree with you, either.
What do you suppose the alternative would have been if the wall of WTC2 had been stronger? Is it possible the fuel might have bounced off the building, or what would have happened, hypothetically, if the wall had been impermeable? About the only alternative to "bouncing" I can think of is the fuel might have spread out laterally on the surface of the building until it reached the edge, then continued forward. I think bouncing is more likely, but we would need to simulate the fluid dynamics to really know. I'm just asking you to speculate.
Also, do you think there is anything they could have done to the wall of WTC2 that would have caused the fuel not to penetrate, to lose its momentum, and to make a mushroom cloud traveling upward via convective currents?
the only way to have stopped the fuel would have been stopping the plane.
Maybe the plane could have penetrated into the building and not out the other side, in that case i would see the possibility of the fuel being trapped inside but even then the fuel combusted which would cause a huge inward gust of air (possibly imploding the windows) causing the fuel to spread out in all directions, since the fuel vapors are what burn it would act as a gas exploding in every direction causing the fire ball as we see it.
the only way i see a mushroom cloud forming is if there was ground surrounding the area, but since the impact was in the air i cannot see this possibility.
the only way i see a mushroom cloud forming is if there was ground surrounding the area, but since the impact was in the air i cannot see this possibility.
How would the presence of ground affect the momentum of the jet fuel? Are you thinking of friction?
I am more wondering if there is a type of construction, or a configuration of the ground and building, so that the plane could be travelling 600 mph, and the fuel explosion would be a mushroom cloud.
I think the only way this could have happened is if the fuel had first come to a stop prior to exploding. That is, the fuel trapped in the building after the impact, might have made a vertically-extending fire inside the building. That would have required at least a couple of seconds for the fuel to come to "rest", I would imagine.
Would you agree that unless the fuel comes to rest, the explosion will not be predominantly vertical? That if the fuel explodes immediately when traveling 600 mph, that momentum is going to be reflected in the shape of the explosion?
yes, I'm picturing that would would have to happen is the fuel come to rest or near rest. The idea of the floor/ground is that the fuel couldn't form a fire ball and would move upward and out rather than in all directions.
the ground eliminated the fire ball by adding a constrain in one direction
if the fuel was contained inside the building it might be able to do this but again the amount of air needed would either destroy the windows in the process (allowing a fire ball scenario) or be retarded and possibly eliminated/ causing a slower buring fire that would travel upward but not in mushroom could form.
yes, I'm picturing that would would have to happen is the fuel come to rest or near rest.
How long would be required for that to happen, you think? At least 1 or 2 seconds?
the ground eliminated the fire ball by adding a constrain in one direction
I have no idea what you mean by this -- the collision was in the air, but are saying if it had been a ground-level hit, we might have seen the fuel spread out all over the ground and burn? I could see that, since the plane was headed slightly downward. I just can't figure out what you mean by this.
if the fuel was contained inside the building it might be able to do this but again the amount of air needed would either destroy the windows in the process (allowing a fire ball scenario) or be retarded and possibly eliminated.
OK. This isn't the garden path I actually meant to be on, so this particular thought we can let go for now. I just want to focus on the first 1-2 seconds after the impact.
It sounds like we agree that fireball developing with only wind speed for its lateral motion could not have happened in the first 1-2 seconds. I wanted to mention wind speed, because of course that would skew the fireball slightly off vertical. But of course, that isn't what we see. We see that the explosion is horizontal and even downward, because the fuel has so much momentum. After all, momentum is proportional to the square of the velocity, so 600mph is a huge factor.
Here's a decent video of the WTC 2 impact, of course there are many others:
It is worth noting that these videos were captured by news crews and amateurs, and we have lots of angles with which to view the WTC 2 impact and explosion. I don't think it could be possible that these videos were all faked by the perpetrators. So I think you are going to have to agree that the momentum of the jet fuel, and the effect that had on the subsequent fireball, is well documented. Would you agree?
What i see is the impact, the fire ball then the remaining fuel being burnt, traveling up in fireball fashion due to wind, settling in the building.
the smoke looks like a mushroom cloud, but that's the smoke, the after math of the fire ball(for the most part) with some remaining fuel burning in it as well.
plane crashes
fire ball engulfs building
smoke forms the mushroom cloud (with some burning fuel remaining from the initial explosion) / smoke continues as a mushroom cloud (hot air is less dense and would travel directly up with the smoke and remaining fuel)
It looks to me like the fireball predominantly comes out the far side of the building, that there is practically zero fireball on the side with the impact. In other words, very little fuel bounced.
I'm looking at the videos now and i see this.
1.the fuel travels out the exit hole as we agreed on (momentum of the fuel)
2. the fuel ignites while in the building traveling out the exit hole
3. the fuel is continuing to burn inside the cloud
4. the cloud is rising due to the high temperatures, pulling up the remaining fuel with it
5 this in-sequence causes the fuel to fireball upward rather than in all directions. the convection currents caused by the explosion draws the fuel up, forming a "mushroom cloud"
This all seems to me like exactly what we should expect to happen when a plane at high speed crashes full of kerosene. In fact, there are dozens of plane crash videos on youtube, which make for morbid watching, but support the idea that the momentum of the fuel is very important.
Now, let's get to the reason I walked you down this path. You and I agree that planes struck the WTC towers, even if we disagree on whether that is why the towers collapsed. But that is not the disagreement I am getting at.
Having watched the video interviews with ten eye witnesses, including two police officers, I don't believe the plane which flew toward the pentagon either, (a) knocked down the light poles, or (b) caused the explosion of the pentagon.
To that end, I want to show you something that doesn't look quite right. As you may know, the government released "footage" from a pentagon gate security camera. You can view it here:
Before you watch it from the beginning, let me assist you in not making any quick errors:
Check out the wind speed blowing the smoke cloud at 2:10-2:55, when we can be sure there is only wind to explain the right-to-left motion of the smoke.
Now check out the kerosene explosion. Where did all that momentum go?
The video is faked. Don't ask me why the people who faked it were unable to do a good job, or what the motives of the perpetrators might have been. Those are irrelevant tangents to the question of whether that fireball could reasonable have been caused by even a 300mph jet airliner collision.
I have tried to open your eyes to some psychology previously, but it is a soft science. I am not saying that I don't have my own ideas as to why the people who faked this video screwed up, I do. I am just saying I don't want to discuss psychology with you because that really is a matter of opinion, not science. It also really doesn't matter if my psychological theories are wrong or right -- what matters is that all evidence indicates that the official story of flight 77 hitting the pentagon cannot be believed.
I also wonder if you ever watched the video which has the hidden camera footage of the "cab driver eye witness" admitting that he is part of a cover-up.
What I see is the plane crashing into the ground maybe 10-20 feet in-front of the building (cant be sure of how far) and possibly having the furl exploding as it hits the building (rather than having the plane hit the building causing the explosion)
We also have to take into account the differences in the buildings
the WTC was built around a core meaning the entry of the plane was very easy (glass and non-structural metal facade) While the Pentagon was steel re-enforced concrete designed to resist such attacks
Possibilities
1. the plane impacted the ground before the pentagon causing the fireball to start outside the building, then slow down enough to billow into a cloud as it continued into the building.
2 the plane impacted a building made from much stronger materials, materials that could reduce the momentum of the fuel/impact to cause the billowing cloud much sooner.
This is on top of low resolution low frame rate video and those frames are the issue, we cant be sure that the plane hit the ground or building first but in either case It wouldn't behave similarly to the WTC impacts.
That's an interesting speculation. It doesn't seem to explain the failure of momentum to be conserved.
... While the Pentagon was steel re-enforced concrete designed to resist such attacks
That point doesn't make sense in light of the penetration of the "aircraft" into the C ring. If you think the fuel of the plane could not penetrate the pentagon walls, how do you think it is possible for the aircraft to have penetrated through five of these reinforced concrete walls? Some people forget that the fuselage is made of very thin aluminum. Only the spars and keel are particularly solid, and those certainly don't explain the curiously circular hole in the C-ring wall.
At this point I think I've established that you can't look at evidence and interpret it without bias. Momentum is momentum. The fuel was either moving at 500mph and miraculously came to a sudden stop, or it was never moving to begin with.
You know what would make more sense? That the Pentagon had a high-tech kerosene shield made of invisible energy.
The fuel is contained in the wings which of little mass relative to the rest of the plane would have ruptured when they hit the side of the building(or ground)
Although the plane is made of aluminum and relative to other materials if light it is still between 150 and 225 tons, focused at the center of the crash was well over 80 - 120 tons (dry) would have been focused at the center of impact. F=MV2 so the amount of force focused on the center of impact is enormous.
To me this Impact looks as though
1. the wings impacted the building and ruptured
2. the fuel being a liquid and in combustion caused very little damage to the out side of the building as it was unrestricted (back and up ward) it took the path of least resistance and went up (causing the instant fireball/ burning cloud)
3. the remaining mass focused at the center of impact was able to push though the building.
in comparison wings vs fuselage , the wings are like balloons (the mass comes from the fuel) while the fuselage is like a brick
they could both be the same mass and cause very different impacts on a structure: while throwing a balloon at a wall (low to the ground) would cause the liquid to stop almost immediate and burst upward , while throwing a brick at the same wall could cause damage to the wall
while throwing a balloon at a wall (low to the ground) would cause the liquid to stop almost immediate and burst upward
Two problems with this: (1) if you threw a water balloon at 600 mph, it would act like a rock, (2) the jet fuel in the fake video doesn't jet upward, bounce off, or continue forward. It has zero momentum and instantaneously decelerates from 600mph to 0mph. That's not possible.
yeah but you are assuming its impacting on the building, not the ground first.
You forgot about vector components. The maximum angle that plane would be making is, what? 5 degrees? Think about the dot product, physics minor dude... The fuel has to keep moving horizontally or Isaac Newton was wrong.
It also seems rather impossible that the plane could have hit the ground and not left a mark, which it didn't. There are multiple photos of this.
just look back at the WTC second crash the plane hits and the fireball explodes out the other side and almost immediately begins billowing up. Looking at the pentagon video assuming that during the choppy frame the plane impacted and exploded in-front of the building and then continued into the side. This it roughly the same amount of time it took the WTC fire ball to go from moving in the direction of the plane to billowing up. That lack of video preciseness is what causes the problem. On top of that unlike the WTC the pentagon fireball would have faced a much stronger wall.
plane crashes into the ground in-front of the pentagon
the fireball begins in that missing frame (not really missing just choppy) and within that time stops moving forward and being billowing (this is as stated above a comparable time frame to the fireball exiting the WTC and begin billowing up)
"I see a fireball that has zero momentum" it only took a second after the fireball in the WTC exited the building to have no momentum in the direction of impact and billow upward
"rebar bent outward." could you provide some examples?
I must say this has changed into a good discussion that has ultimately re-enforced my thoughts on what happened. This is the kind of conversation I was looking for originally.
I haven't watched the CIT video yet as i am still going over the physics of what happened with you, though now i don't think there is much more for you to say to convince me other wise than what I have told you I will take a look (I still don't believe that eye-witnesses are the best source but I'll look)
I know you don't like these kinds of questions but. What caused the light poles to be knocked down? Was it simply to give evidence of the plane? If so why not just claim the plane took a steeper approach rather than go through the work of "faking" evidence?
And I see you didn't mention them again, light poles, street and highway signs are all designed to "break away"
You don't have to keep repeating your theory. I get what you are trying to say, and no amount of repetition is going to validate your fallacy.
You seem to be saying that the fuel hit the ground, then continued forward, then flowed up the wall of the pentagon. Or are you saying that it began to burn immediately, and none of it flowed up the wall, because it had already all burned up? It really doesn't seem believable that the fuel would for some reason stop because it is burning -- WTC 2 fuel didn't do that.
There are plenty of photos showing outward bent columns and rebard, prior to the collapse. You can search for more rather than ask me to do that for you. Columns bent outward:
You like to ignore anything which discredits your theory, I get that.
I know you don't like these kinds of questions but. What caused the light poles to be knocked down? Was it simply to give evidence of the plane?
YES.
If so why not just claim the plane took a steeper approach rather than go through the work of "faking" evidence?
It was necessary that the plane's purported trajectory match the damage pattern.
And I see you didn't mention them again, light poles, street and highway signs are all designed to "break away"
I really do not think that is relevant when answering the question "why did the poles not wreck the airplane when it struck them?" One reason the break-away poles aren't relevant is that the poles did not break away, before they broke in two near the top. You obviously haven't looked into this, you like to just state generalities without looking at the evidence. A second reason is that the poles are designed to break away from a less than 100 mph impact at near ground level, not from a 600mph impact near their top. You need to stop conflating things that happen at 600mph with things that happen at water-balloon speeds.
IF the poles were broken at the top by flight 77, then flight 77 would have had equal damage to its wing. And do not try to tell me that poles broke on the ground, you need to look at the damage on the poles before you go that mistaken route. The faked damage is supposed to look like an airplane struck the poles.
^ just watched that about Lloyde, honestly it seemed like a confused old man talking. I'm not saying what he is saying isn't true or some cover up, but could more likely be a confused shook up person after the events. I'm sure if a pole fell down onto my car while i was driving I might over look exactly where I was at the time of the incidence (on the bridge or near) as my goal would be self preservation. Being in a accident like that with the possibility of being killed thought the wind screen I'm sure what I remember would be cloudy on the specifics of where exactly it happened, how fast i was going and maybe even where i was immediately coming from.
The second part of him just talking about the "bigger picture" sounds like anything I would hear for an old person who might believe the conspiracies.
I don't see this one incident as proof of anything.
And its up for interpretation i.e. taking pictures on the bridge yeah sounds like it means a lot but there's no background to the question could be people taking pictures that were shown but could be people taking pics for insurance claim (lack of clarification isn't proof of the theory)
There were other cars on the bridge, maybe if there was testimony form them it might make it more believable but one old guy rambling isn't a good eye witness.
AND on a personal note "lack of job" doesn't mean I don't work, I am currently installing a kitchen into my brothers house during the day, while having phone interviews with a local employment opportunity.
So it seems at this point unless you have some hidden chest of good evidence I will not be convinced of any conspiracy in the events of 911. I will say this though the one and only thing I see as fishy is that Bush after hearing of the attacks sat in the class room for 20 minutes. The only reason i find this fishy is, 2 planes were still not account for (were also continental flights), while he sat in a disclosed location. Could be that the secret service just shit the bed on that lack of protection by not pulling him out immediately. For all they knew one of those planes could have been on its way to that school where he was known to be. And that all that really brought me to this reddit.
I know building 7 is a biggie for a lot of people got anything on that?
Or are there any other main stream conspiracies you support?
JFK? Chem-trails? Moon landing? HARRP? Hollow Earth?
Well I guess there is no getting through to you. That "confused old man" sure wasn't confused when he knew the camera was on, now was he?
Why was the hood of his car undamaged by this light pole? Why are the light poles heavily damaged at the top, but the plane kept flying?
And why were the two police officers absolutely sure that the plane could not have flown the official path?
Or are there any other main stream conspiracies you support? JFK? Chem-trails? Moon landing? HARRP? Hollow Earth?
JFK: Obvious cover-up. Again with the momentum being all wrong. George Bush Sr. was involved in this one.
Chem-trails: Sounds bizarre to me. I'm not sure I would call this "main stream," either.
Moon landing: I have no idea, assume it's not fake.
HAARP: I know what HAARP is for, but if I told you, they would have to kill you. It's not about earthquakes, I'll tell you that.
Hollow Earth: Please be serious. That is not a main-stream conspiracy. For that matter, it is not, in and of itself, a conspiracy theory. It's a geological theory or something.
So it seems at this point unless you have some hidden chest of good evidence I will not be convinced of any conspiracy in the events of 911.
I think this has been really great for the Internet, and useless for you. Personally, I had never noticed that the fireball is so obviously fake in the fake pentagon video. This conversation was excellent in that many people have now had this pointed out to them.
You neglected to notice that the plane was coming at the viewer, but the fuel didn't. You know what a dot product is, I hope?
I will say this though the one and only thing I see as fishy is that Bush after hearing of the attacks sat in the class room for 20 minutes. The only reason i find this fishy is, 2 planes were still not account for (were also continental flights), while he sat in a disclosed location.
Wow, I am shocked you would admit this is a glaring problem in the official reaction.
What do you think about the amazing coincidence that there was a same-day drill involving simulated hijacked planes? Amazing coincidence?
There were other cars on the bridge, maybe if there was testimony form them it might make it more believable but one old guy rambling isn't a good eye witness.
This isn't true. There were no other purported eye-witnesses to the poles being hit. See if you can find one. There were cars which arrived later but Lloyd was supposedly the only eye witness.
I know building 7 is a biggie for a lot of people got anything on that?
I would have to turn to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth on that one. What do they say about it?
"HAARP: I know what HAARP is for, but if I told you, they would have to kill you. It's not about earthquakes, I'll tell you that." so why haven't they killed you?
And yeah I do believe it was a coincidence, besides if the drill was a week or a month earlier they would still make the same argument, that "they were training for this same scenario a week before coincidence!?"
I feel it would go something like this "And can you believe they were training for a similar incident in April, a plane hitting a building in Manhattan. Now where could they have gotten that idea from, it had never been done before. Could it be they were working out scenarios that could invoke a cause for war?"
Ill take a look at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth tomorrow.
You should stop it with both your attempts at psychology and your counterfactual hypotheticals. The drills weren't for a week later or earlier, or a month, they were for the same day. There is a difference between something happening simultaneously and something happening relatively proximate in time.
But still about the drills, maybe you not in particular but most people would see that it happened recently and deduce it as evidence for a coverup/conspiracy.
Besides why plan the drills on the same day, to confuse? I'm sure the people planning this "false flag" didn't think it would be fishy when there was an investigation.
But still about the drills, maybe you not in particular but most people would see that it happened recently and deduce it as evidence for a coverup/conspiracy.
That is a counterfactual hypothetical. In the sense of Karl Popper, it is not falsifiable, and therefore not a scientific question.
Besides why plan the drills on the same day, to confuse? I'm sure the people planning this "false flag" didn't think it would be fishy when there was an investigation.
Yes, to confuse and to delay a response as well as to make it difficult to track the actual path of the planes.
I'm sure the people planning this "false flag" didn't think it would be fishy when there was an investigation.
They don't care. They are dealing with two kinds of people: 90% of the U.S. are sheep who won't question them. The other 10%, they want to frighten, not fool. You cannot fool all of the people all of the time. Therefore, you fool 90% and frighten the rest into silence.
Besides, they tried to appoint Kissinger to the investigation, although that fell through. If you know anything about Mr. Bomb Cambodia Illegally, you know that appointing him to an investigation is good for guaranteed cover-up, especially for good old boys Cheney and Bush. The people who perpetrated this controlled the "investigation," Hippo.
The fuel is contained in the wings which of little mass relative to the rest of the plane would have ruptured when they hit the side of the building(or ground)
I'm only concerned with the momentum of the fuel, which does not depend on the mass of its container.
Kerosene is pretty heavy.
Your statement that the fuselage is heavy is false. There is a beam which runs the length of the fuselage, and that is dense (none of this stuff should be called heavy, let's say dense). But the beam, called the keel, is a small part of the fuselage. The skin of the airplane is thin.
Also, don't forget that there is a center fuel tank to consider with 1/3 of the fuel in it. That tank happens to be in the most solid part of the aircraft, the so-called "wing box."
yes the mass of the container is low, and the mass of the fuel is high in comparison. The difference between the fuel hitting a building and the keel is astronomical.
The fuel being liquid would hit the building as it was igniting which would bounce off (like when talking about the WTC) the fuel in this case had a wall of high strength going up against it causing the fuel to blast upward as in the video and ignite mostly on the exterior of the building into the cloud
The remaining 1/3 of the fuel would have entered the building with the keel causing the fire that cause the structural failure there in.
the keel being majority of the mass of the plane, this would also account for the small entry hole and exit hold found in the pictures (most people argue that they hole isn't big enough for the plane but the mass being at the keel would make this seem more probable as the cause of the smaller hole than expected)
The fuel being liquid would hit the building as it was igniting which would bounce off
This is all great speculation. The problem is the video. The video doesn't show the fuel bouncing or splashing as if in an elastic collision. (At 600 mpg, treating as a liquid in viscous flow is wrong. It makes more sense to treat it as a hydraulic solid. Compare to the effect of hitting water at 120mph, as if falling with no parachute. At that speed, water is like a solid surface.)
What do you think the cross-section of the keel is, by the way? It's much too small to have caused the hole in the C-ring.
The main point here is this: the explosion in the fake pentagon video doesn't show any evidence of momentum being conserved in any direction. The fuel doesn't carry forward, as it does at the WTC. The fuel does not bounce. The fuel does not jet upward into the air.
Rather, what we see in the fake video is a fireball that is 100% consistent with motionless kerosene being exploded. The only motion of the fireball is due to wind.
And no matter how hard you try, you can't explain that, because it is inexplicable. If it makes sense in your head, I'm sorry for you. Honestly sorry that you are so much in the thrall of the people who did this, that you have forgotten your physics minor, and now you are synthesizing whole new crappy explanations.
You need to scroll up to the point 5 messages above in which I asked you if there was any wall construction technique that would have resulted in this effect at WTC 2. Of course there isn't. What this video purports to show is not possible according to the laws of physics. And I'll have you know I made it through Quantum Chromodynamics, so I feel free to quote the laws of physics.
Others have criticized this fake video for various image forensics flaws. For example, the white smoke casts no shadow. The time signature does not increment correctly.
You are faced with overwhelming evidence:
The black box indicates 77 could not have hit the light poles, because its altimeter reading was at least 180 feet AGL.
The fake video doesn't follow the laws of physics.
Eye witnesses including trained police officers state that the plane "could not" have flown the flight path which supposedly hit the light poles. In particular, the police officers and several others were standing in positions where they would not have been able to see 77 if it had been on the official story flight path.
You've seen the hidden video of the cab driver who admits he is lying as part of a cover-up that he got unwillingly dragged into. (You HAVE watched that by now, haven't you?)
I think the reason you can't understand what really happened is that you're a young idealist. You want to believe the United States is a good nation, a country to be proud of. Well, it is, but some of our presidents have been genocidal Satanists. Prescott Bush was a supporter of the Nazis during WW2. George Bush Sr. was deeply involved in CRP and Watergate, and probably the JFK assassination. George Bush Jr. was one of the parties behind 9/11 and used it as an excuse to wage war against a nation that had nothing to do with it.
The U.S. is still a country with great potential, but we have to clean up our own house. We have a number of evil people in positions of power. These people are feeding you lies and chemicals to make you swallow the lies.
By the way -- if you claim the wings of the plane are so fragile, how is that they could take out 3 light poles each? The light poles were built to withstand car impacts. The wing leading edges (not the spar) were not built to withstand impacts. If 77 hit these poles, why was it not leaking fuel or already on fire when it hit? OTHER planes crash when they hit things like power lines. This plane somehow flew through SIX light poles? Come on....
I believed 9/11 was real for a short while -- about four hours. I was watching the news coverage when CNN stated that the FBI had told them they had found a passport of one Mohammad Atta in the rubble, thus indicating that this was a terrorist attack.
Seriously? The passport survived that impact and fireball, then fluttered down to the FBI agent? My ass. I'm older than you. I've seen more than one US government cover-up. When they put forward a statement as ridiculous as the found passport, that is a red flag.
I'm not an idealist. And this is where my problem with conspiracy comes in, simply that as I am trying to debunk them, you will not accept any alternative points of view (not you personally) the problem mean that you (and everyone) have the ideas cemented in their head and even if overwhelming evidence surfaces its faked, or a cover up or wrong.
What really gets me is the people who watch videos and hear people spout their theories and don't question, but once its a news program, article, or report that says the opposite of what they believe its the government trying to stop them.
Wings hitting light poles: you do know that they are not designed for car impacts? Poles and signs are designed to "break away" to prevent the occupants in the car from being killed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3h6PQtJGsM
comparing power lines to light poles? cutting a light pole is the going to cause damage to the wing but impacting a cable is much different (not to mention the electric impact)
If you know anything about materials you would know that a hollow tube (light pole) would be much much easier to break on impact than an inch thick or braided wire.
Passport: Yeah sounds crazy maybe they were just trying to find their scape goat. Or is it that truth is stranger than fiction? Do you really think that the FBI didn't "this looks fishy"
The thing is if they didn't release the pass port when they found it (assuming everything is true) and waited a few days than there would just be some conspiracy about them not releasing the info, what where they looking for in the pass port? did they change something in it?
And this is my point... it doesn't matter what happens there will always be someone claiming the conspiracy, propagating doubt and finding people with wallets to support them. You would think if you ran an organization that wanted the truth you would give it out for free. Not charge 49.99 for Pilots for 911, not saying its a bad group but if you want your message heard why profit from it?
Tell me, what is you explanation to this, start to finish from the time of hijacking till building 7?
And lest try and have one reply back and forth at time were getting scattered brained again.
It's not "simply that you are you are trying to debunk me" that I have decided you can't see the evidence clearly.
Your attempt to debunk the fakeness of the video relies on laws of physics no longer applying to that one plane. It's not a simple attempt, it's ridiculous. This is why people start to wonder what it is about your mental state that is creating this mental block.
have the ideas cemented in their head and even if overwhelming evidence surfaces its faked
This is completely wrong. Although I knew 9/11 was fake about four hours after it happened, it was years before I knew that flight 77 did not hit the pentagon. I'm very open to new evidence, and at this point the question in my mind is whether the pentagon was struck by a missile or whether explosives were planted inside. Based on the damage, it appears to me that explosives were inside the C ring, and blasted outward. But I am not sure and haven't decided, and there is also the possibility of both a missile and explosives. The one thing I'm sure of is that it was not flight 77.
Your supposition about wires vs. poles does not match mine. The poles were much more massive than power lines, you seem to have forgotten. What holds the "cables" to the poles? Ceramic stand-offs are usually a lot more fragile than you seem to think.
Passport: Yeah sounds crazy maybe they were just trying to find their scape goat. Or is it that truth is stranger than fiction? Do you really think that the FBI didn't "this looks fishy"
Now wait a minute... why would they need a scape goat?
As for the FBI realizing it looks fishy and all subsequent, now you are getting into the psychology of the actors, which you really do not get.
Tell me, what is you explanation to this, start to finish from the time of hijacking till building 7?
For that, I would have to turn to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. And nobody should expect me to explain how it was done; I wasn't part of the crime. However, you can see for yourself that persons with graduate degrees in Architecture and Engineering tell us that the official story is not possible.
...
Regarding the passport, I would be the first to agree that, sometimes, truth is stranger than fiction. However, that's no excuse to believe the impossible. The idea that a paper passport would survive the impact, the fire, and the collapse of the buildings, and then be found in the rubble... isn't just odd, it's preposterous.
That the FBI would immediately release the person's name, without being certain that they had the right accusation, is also preposterous.
yes the mass of the container is low, and the mass of the fuel is high in comparison. The difference between the fuel hitting a building and the keel is astronomical.
Just so you are aware... The mass of an empty 757 is 58,000 kg and the fuel of a full 757 weighs about 60,000 kg.
The keel is going to be a small fraction of that 58,000kg, but let's be generous and call it 5%. That would be 2,900 kg. Let's assume it was travelling 885 km/h. The momentum of the hypothetical keel would be: 175M joules.
Let's say the fuel tanks were 75% empty, so that is only 15,000 kg of kerosene. The momentum of the fuel would be 906M joules.
In terms of the speed of sound in kerosene, the plane hit at 20% of the speed of sound in kerosene. IF the plane came to a sudden stop on impact with the Pentagon, we should therfore expect a shock wave in the fuel, caused by the impact at the front of the tank propagating to the back of the tank, and probably blowing some of the fuel backward and out of the tank, which is, as you mentioned, comparatively flimsy compared to these forces...
But none of that happened, instead there is this lazy kerosene fireball that is only moving with the wind, nothing else. It just doesn't fly. haha
where are you getting the number though? the 5% weight of the keel, and that the plane would be 75% empty? Is this an assumption?
The plane was flying to LA, the path it took maybe used 1/6th of the fuel (3000 mile journey that was cut to only 500 mile give or take) In that case I would argue that the tanks were 75-80% full not empty.
If the mass of the keel is only 5% the total of the dry weight that means at least half the remaining mass is the center fuselage (assuming the wings account together for the remaining half) that means 29,000 kg hit the center of impact (This is a huge force of impact, reinforced with the strength and added mass of the keel)
Standing by my argument that the plane possibly hit the ground first we see that the wings ruptured (like throwing a water balloon on the ground), the fuel continued until it met 2 feet of re-enforced concrete. By the time the fuel hit the building it began to burn. due to the choppy video this is my best assumption.
Shock wave: this is saying the plane directly impacted the wall of the pentagon, looking at the video it appears more likely that it impacted the ground first.
(frame 1) Plane just before it impacts the ground in front of pentagon
(between frame) the fuel ruptures and begins to form the fire ball
(frame 2) the plane continues into the pentagon, the fireball now slowed down by the impact with the ground continues into the pentagon as a slower moving cloud and burns.
where are you getting the number though? the 5% weight of the keel, and that the plane would be 75% empty? Is this an assumption?
These are what a person calls conservative assumptions. I am skewing them in your favor, by making the keel overly massive, and underestimating the mass of the fuel. This is done to try to boost your argument while still disproving it. Otherwise, you might claim I had estimated to the detriment of your theory.
In that case I would argue that the tanks were 75-80% full not empty
That supports my argument.
What do you see happening in this video? What is your explanation for this event?
I see a fireball that has zero momentum and does not match any fireball from any other recorded plane crash I can find. I posted some videos for you of planes hitting the ground, they simply don't match.
Further, you seemed to think the center fuel tank continued forward, because you need to stipulate that in order to explain the plane hitting the ground but continuing forward. If so, there should have been fires inside the C ring, because that fuel would have continued forward. However, there are no such fires.
Furthermore, the C ring hole has no bricks displaced in the direction of the "impact", whereas the "entry" hole has rebar bent outward.
What's more, there are multiple pieces of evidence which corroborate that the plane was not on a flight path which matched the video.
Have you watched the CIT video yet? In particular, the part where the cab driver admits he is part of something he didn't mean to be involved in?
If you have a monopoly on the creation of the money the entire planet uses for international trade and it costs you absolutely nothing to produce it, all other conspiracies are possible and completely feasible.
so that makes them all true? If you gave me enough time i could give you substantial evidence of anything.
PBS caused 911, I'm sure if i looked hard enough i could prove it and we didn't land on the moon that was just a hoax to benefit walt disney.
If they have a monopoly on the creation of money why do anything? at all ever? you have the money what more could you want? power? no you already have that with the money? so its all for fun then?
Did i say they were all true? No, i said they were feasible and completely in the realm of possibility.
Now, as for your last question, if you have all the money in the world, the next step is indeed raw power. Buying out foreign rulers and fomenting coups to establish western friendly dictators is not only possible but standard operating procedure. Having the monopoly on money is the prerequisite to control over individuals.
War is always about getting more. More oil. More power. More money.
And I would have to imagine that part of it is that the money being made is on equipment and weapons used in war. If you go to war more of your product has to be bought.
I think the way you worded the question makes it hard to answer. Do you mean any war? Because the benefits of war differ from war to war.
I think in the world today we just want to feel safe. We want to all feel like our best interests are at the heart of the people we elect. When faced with conspiracy theories alot of people demand all the facts and yet fail to do so from the government or the mainstream story.
What you're doing here? You're questioning. You want people to PROVE to you that what they are saying is true. We want that too. We want the government to PROVE that what they said happened did indeed happen and when they can't we question, explore and try to understand. You're not that different, you know? It's just you're doing it in a different direction than people on this subreddit.
You should look up the list of conspiracy theories that have been proven in the past. It helps to understand why people are uneasy with mainstream stories that push an agenda.
Because the more money you print the less the dollar is valued at. They need already circulating dollars in order to keep the dollar where it is and still become richer. If it was possible to print more money with out serious inflation it would be done, but doing so would collapse the dollars worth and therefore is not a profitable since the inflation would be substantial.
So your job is to inform people, why the heck would you give people the information that is not confirmed yet? Because they are trying to confuse people, it's all part of the game. Check similar news report 10 years ago, can you see information changing every day? No! Because it's really important time to fuck up peoples mind, it's a reality psyop.
I'd like to recommend that you stop replying to i8hippo2, and instead go through his post history and down-vote everything. This will make it more difficult for him to post his asinine insinuations masked in the form of questions.
wow you sir are the reason people are miss informed, someone has a different point of view and you push them out, how noble of you. I can do the same to you, you know :-D
how so? All i was doing was asking questions, amazingly I did get one person the actually like to discuss this and not just ignore me because I have a different point of view. At least I can talk to them :-)
I have no problem with a person who has a different point of view. You aren't that person. You are a lying shill who asks purported questions such as "how does thermite pulverize concrete?" That is not a real question, and neither are any of your supposed questions. What you are is a disinformation operative.
You have presented yourself as an open-minded person capable of understanding technical details. You are lying about at least one of these two things: (1) open-minded, (2) capable of understanding technical details.
How is that a bad question? Do you have any idea what temperature thermite reaches when burning? Or the water content of concrete? You can't put burning thermite in contact with concrete and not pulverize the concrete. I know for a fact: my first experience with thermite involved making the mistake of burning it on a concrete sidewalk, as I already wrote. At 4000 degrees F, what do you think will happen to concrete? Do you know anything about concrete to begin with, such as the fact that it has a very high water content?
But I don't know why I am replying to you. Your tactics make it clear that you are doing this on purpose and are probably someone's employee.
OH wow you actually explained something that's a first.
If i was someones employee I wouldn't waste my time with this non-sense, I'm out of college looking for a job found this thread interesting but had my own thoughts, turns out most of you are like you, mean, rude, and ignore any outside views, and just go on living with the thought somethings out there to get you.
Another thing you have lied about is your statement elsewhere that all the experts agree with the 9/11 cover story. Nothing could be further from the truth. You insinuate that any person who does not believe the cover story is a mindless person regurgitating what others have said. In that regard, you are one of the biggest assholes on the Internet.
As for experts who do not agree with you, consider Pilots for 9/11 Truth. An organization of professional airline pilots, they argue that the NIST tapes from the supposed pentagon-striking flight are physically impossible. They also argue that flying the aircraft at the stated speeds is impossible. They want the truth, and certainly they are experts at flying commercial airliners.
Consider also Architects & Engineers for 9/11 truth. They assert the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, and that the official story is not possible. How many of these experts do you need to hear from?
Or consider the testimony of police officer eye-witnesses, which absolutely contradict the planted physical evidence:
Watch that video to the end, including the hidden camera talk with the cab driver. Now tell me you either have had your eyes opened or admit that you work for the people who did this, or that you are somehow under their control.
and I agree lets go one step at a time, the system you and I have used is too scattered to get the responses we both would like.
The fire ball: It looks to me that the plane impacted the building and exploded during the impact, the wings were destroyed allowing the fuel to ignite in the building, along with that the plane was traveling at high speed, the fuel in the wings was traveling as fast as the plane, and would continue traveling out thought the building after the crash.
Simply: The fuel kept going in the straight line out the other side of the building.
I used to believe there was something fishy about 911 but now looking at all the "credible evidence" it looks like 4 air planes were hijacked and crashed, causing 2 buildings to collapse, a 3rd building that had the other buildings fall on it collapse, a military building, steel reinforced concrete to be hit by a plane with little damage, and a 4th plane to crash in a field.
Please...show me this "credible evidence" you are speaking of.
Because I've looked for over 5 years, and I can't find a single picture or video of (a) a plane at the Pentagon, (b) a plane at Shanksville, or (c) a pile of "110 pancaked floors" (should be two piles). There were lots of pics and vids taken that day...please show me your "credible evidence".
The planes that "our" media tells us hit the Pentagon and crashed at Shanksville were over half a football field long, with wingspans of 125'. The tail stood 45' tall, and there were over 200 seats. Please find me a picture or video of one of the massive engines, the gargantuan landing gear, the wings, the tail, any of the miles of wiring, any seats, luggage, or bodies. Go to Google images, and start searching. I'll tell you what you will find: One single picture of one single scrap of aluminum, far out on the Pentagon lawn, with the focal length on the camera set to where you can't determine its size.
Rather than demand proof of "inside job", I demand proof that the story "our" government and media is telling us is true. Show us your "credible evidence".
lets ignore WTC7 for now what ever. The facts are this, WTC1 and 2 were designed completely differently than any other buildings before them, comparing them being "on fire" to any other building is non-sence. What clearly happened was an AIR plane crashed into the side of the building destroying the center structure... the center structure that held the buildings upright. With the center destroyed the the buildings pancaked, the entire quarter of the building above the gaping hole fell onto the floors below, chain reaction.
^ this is how i see it as happening from viewing the evidence, you looking on the same evidence see a different conclusion. With that how can we say you are more right than I?
and the idea you have of "pancaked floors" is just silly, even when the do controlled demos the floors don't land in stacks at the bottom, they don't plant explosives on every floor to obliterate the material it breaks as it fall onto the pile.
the planes? You show me a picture of a plane crashing at 600 mph and having anything left!
I'm sure as a kid you had the toy where you had to put different objects into their respective holes, like a cube into a square hole, a sphere into a circular whole, etc. Now imagine they replace a cube with a plane and the hole you are supposed to fit it in is a sandbox. I think this diagram is pretty easy to follow. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Actually, just read up here; it could answer some of your questions and bring light to some of the inconsistencies with the official report.
Wouldnt the hole be just as big if not bigger than the actual plane? Take a meteorite for example. It could be a relatively small chunk of rock, but when hitting the earth it creates a huge crater. I wouldnt expect the crater of a plane to be smaller than the plane itself.
Shouldnt you also take into account the acceleration, and judging by what you said earlier, 600 is a good number to work off of. Since its traveling at such a quick speed and has quite a bit of mass since its a plane and not a small pebble, it should create quite a large crater.
I'd like to recommend that you stop replying to i8hippo2, and instead go through his post history and down-vote everything. This will make it more difficult for him to post his asinine insinuations masked in the form of questions.
And the twins didn't "collapse". They exploded. You can clearly see large portions of the wall leaving massive trails as they turn to dust in mid-air. The idea that you have of "pancaked floors" is not just silly, but goes against the basic laws of physics and nature.
this is how i see it as happening from viewing the evidence, you looking on the same evidence see a different conclusion.
There are not two different realities. One of us is right, one of us is wrong. You are wrong.
Ok so they exploded? how so with what? what was used to "explode" the towers?
the basic laws of physics? do you have a degree? or do you just hear others saying this and accept their conclusion (I'm not being mean I just want to know how you came up with this)
And you can't be sure I'm wrong so stop telling me I am, the evidence for this is circumstantial and "up for interpretation" stop saying I'm wrong it doesn't make me wrong and it doesn't make you right.
What caused the explosions of the twin towers may be "up for interpretation", but if you can look at the video I posted above, and you can't see large trails of dust trailing behind large multi-story pieces of wall---wall that was not on fire---then you are either physically or mentally blind. IN THE VIDEO, THERE ARE LARGE PIECES OF WALL BEING BLOWN OUTWARD, AND EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF THE WALL HAS LARGE TRAILS OF DUST BEHIND IT.
So we have free will...you're welcome to ignore all the evidence your eyes can see. You're welcome to ignore all the evidence your eyes can't see. You're welcome to ignore that Larry Silverstein got the lease on the twins just seven weeks before 9/11, and quickly got it insured for against terrorist attacks. You can ignore that he collected $4.5 billion on a $14 million down payment. You can ignore all the facts you want. But ignoring, by definition, makes you an ignorant person.
please stop attacking me personally, that's just disrespectful.
if a 2 story building collapsed dust shoots out as the floors topple its simple,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p7G4hpvUn4 if that one wall could make that huge cloud just imagine a 110 story building.
I think we can be certain the towers were made of quite different materials, and much more structurally sound than an old rotting relocated house.
I did not attack you personally.
I said: If you think fire caused the "collapse" of WTC7, then you don't have two brain cells to rub together, and you shouldn't be allowed to operate a spoon.
You are entering comments on the internet. I do not think you are an idiot. I think anyone and everyone with two eyes and a smidgen of operable brain matter can easily discern that WTC7 had to have been brought down by controlled demolition; that there is no way in this universe, the one we live in, that a 47-story building will collapse into it's own footprint in under 7 seconds without the use of cutter charges. However, if you think fire caused the "collapse" of WTC7...I stand by my statement.
And I stated the dictionary definition of ignorant. And as I said, if you choose to ignore all the anomalies of that day in order to rationalize what "our" government and media told us (without them providing us with a shred of proof, mind you) you are quite welcome to. But you will still be wrong.
why is it you chose to disbelieve the experts and choose to believe the "theories" put forth by everyday people, people who see something and make their best observation then stick by it despite what true experts say?
lets start from the beginning, step by step would you be willing to do that?
We are TOLD these things happened, yet we are shown nothing to PROVE these things happened.
Why is it you choose to believe the government-appointed "experts", with absolutely no proof given to you, even though it goes against what any one can see with their own two eyes? (Is it because the tv calls them "experts", so you automatically feel they must be smarter than you? Do you just accept whatever nonsense "our" media tells you to believe, in order to avoid thinking for yourself?)
First off, why do you need video proof? How can you be sure we even had a revolutionary war, or civil war, there's no videos?
Show me a picture of any building that was ever demoed that shows anything resembling pancaked floors
What evidence do you have that your sourced are correct? why is it if the internet calls them experts you believe it? when ever a huge event in history happens do you just think the news corporations are lieing to benefit the rich people? why does everything have such a motive?
ok ok lets stop and slow down. If you are interested that is, tell me, in your own words what exactly happened on 911, like a story. no need to put in proof or pictures just step by step what happened from start to finish.
Kill the ones who talk. The others will get the hint.
Do you listen to contrary evidence
Yes, I do consider contrary evidence which is not supplied by the alleged perpatrators.
In the case of 9/11, it's shocking to me that you could have had an open mind and formed your wrong conclusion. As a seasoned scam artist and successful former criminal, I knew it was a fraud when the TV told me they found Mohammad Atta's passport in the WTC rubble on the afternoon of the attack. Talk about bullshit.
I'm also familiar with thermite and pyroclastic combustion products. It was years before I understood how they took down WTC. The use of thermite should be completely clear to everybody: for one thing, there were temperatures so extreme that cars in the area of the collapse were reduced to only metal. All the plastic, rubber, cloth, were vaporized. Not melted: vaporized.
I should also point out that the mere presence of thermite in WTC is not, in itself, that suspicious. The CIA and military intelligence keep thermite on hand in every facility which process sufficiently secret information. The purpose is to destroy the hardware and data in the event of an invasion or armed take-over.
The issue with the WTC thermite is that there is so much of it, it seems to have been placed in relevant locations, and the timing with which it burned.
Anyway... Why do you ask these question? Are you, perhaps, trying to pat yourself on the back for your skepticism?
for one thing, there were temperatures so extreme that cars in the area of the collapse were reduced to only metal. All the plastic, rubber, cloth, were vaporized. Not melted: vaporized.
true story. the pictures of this are telling, and irrefutably demonstrate that a pyroclastic cloud was present. and fucking jet fuel, which was burning poorly (thick smoke) does not do that. but thermite definitely does.
pictures of said cars? have you ever scene what happens to a car set on fire? it becomes a burnt out shell. Saying it was "vaporized" means nothing if you set plastic on fire it will leave almost no evidence just the burnt out shell.
they weren't set aflame, you fool. study the post-pyroclastic cloud photos and video of vehicles on the street. they are melted, and precisely resemble what other cars have looked like when hit by volcanic pyroclastic conditions.
who set over fourteen hundred cars on fire right after the pyroclastic cloud came through? falling debris did not light these cars on fire. you can clearly see that in the many photos you can easily look up.
to think that you are trying to argue away the pyroclastic cloud when there are countless photos and videos of it, as well as damage to steel containing objects following it, is unreal.
just one pic i found after 5 seconds of looking http://www.ourcar.co.uk/burnt_out_car.JPG
the car was set on fire, notice no door handles that means they melted, they were vaporized like the pics you showed me, they melt....
Actually, I have seen what happens to a car set on fire. NOTHING like what happened to cars at WTC. A reasonable person would not even make the comparison.
well you never gave any evidence or pictures when you say the car melted the first thing that came to my mind was it was simply set on fire, Please don't call me unreasonable I working with what YOU give me.
It's not that I can't support my opinion, it's that I am not teaching kindergarten classes. If you can't look stuff up on your own, but feel some entitlement to dismissive remarks, you may as well go play in the highway for all I care.
The fact that they are nowhere near WTC is sufficient to indicate that their burning has nothing to do with the pyroclastic gas which arose from the thermite that brought the building down. THAT is the point, dipshit.
By stating "who knows why they burned" I am not pleading ignorance, I am stating the irrelevance. Learn to think.
DO NOT reply to me again until you want to talk about the CIT video in which the police officers absolutely reject the official story about the pentagon strike. Once you get past the police officers and into the Arlington Cemetary workers, you may as well skip ahead to the cab driver who got sucked into the cover-up, and essentially admits that. In an effort to catalog every eye-witness, the video gets a little repetitive until the climax at the end.
We were talking about what a liar you are to say that no experts disagree with the official story. I consider police officers expert observers, because they are.
I want you to acknowledge Pilots for 9/11 Truth are experts, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth are experts, the police officers in this video are experts, and all of them refute your opinion.
I can see you don't want to actually talk about the experts who know that 9/11 was a fraud. You want to lie and state they don't exist. Then, when asked about them, pretend you are finally too offended to continue.
Well as I may clarify I am a mechanical engineer with a minor in physics I don't care if you don't believe that but how is it that i could become an expert I've got the degree...
OMFG you have... did you get that degree from an off-shore university? What the fuck kind of mechanical engineer with a minor in physics has this little clue?
Watch until the police officer testimony. I know it gets dull, but hang in there. Feel free to skip the cemetery employees and then jump to the bit with the cab driver. Be certain you watch the part when he does not know he is being recorded.
I don't want to talk about anything other than your assertion that experts agree with the cover story. Multiple times, I have pointed out to you that there are fucking organizations of experts, pilots, architects, and engineers, who assert that the cover story must be false.
You refuse to address that, and instead use information given to you by others in an attempt to draw me in to some tangent. Increasingly, I think you are a well-trained diversionary operative. The tell-tale sign will be if you don't respond to the fact that actual experts disagree with you, or if you refuse to watch that video that I have posted for you, twice.
Looks to me like i gave you a logical explanation and now you are jumping to a different subject.
You gave me some other source's photos of cars that were nowhere near WTC. That is no explanation, that is a diversionary tactic suitable for someone paid to wage a disinformation campaign.
Who the fuck cares? I never brought those cars up and I don't care
Why won't you address the fact that you lied about the experts and why won't you show yourself the statements made by police officer eye-witnesses? Every post in which you fail to address these points further seals the conclusion that you are here on a disinformation campaign in which you pretend to be "one who asks questions". Yeah, you ask a lot of disingenuous questions.
I don't know what kind of shitty education you paid for. At Caltech, all freshmen get to burn thermite, or at least watch it burn. How you could be a mechanical engineer and have to ask by what method thermite destroys concrete... your story isn't holding together.
were all human people make mistakes, intemperate things wrong
Its a normal thing.
Pretend its late at night and you look out your window hear a band and see something, anything
If you believe in aliens it was aliens, if you believe in ghosts it was ghosts, if you believe the government is out to get you it was them. People fill in blanks with what they know.
You spelled so many words wrong, in so many of your posts, that I am beginning to think you are either taking mind-altering substances, or have a mental illness.
Anyway, why do you refuse to talk about the experts you claimed did not exist?
Will you least acknowledge that Pilots for 9/11 Truth is a group which exists, is composed of commercial pilots, and does not agree with you?
You don't have to wait until tomorrow to acknowledge that relevant experts disagree with you. Specifically: Pilots for 9/11 Truth say the official story is impossible, and so do Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
Can you bring yourself to acknowledge the obvious and public fact that there are multitudes of experts who dispute the official story, as opposed to the "none" that you asserted.
You are asking about motives. Do you think I am a telepath?
For that matter, who said it was a missile and not explosives planted in the pentagon? Not me.
Have you ever heard of Pilots for 9/11 Truth before today? Are you aware that they assert the NIST black box data from the pentagon plane is aerodynamically impossible?
And of course you have not watched the CIT video, which shreds the official story with multiple credible witnesses and hidden video of a conspirator, talking about how he got sucked into the conspiracy.
Because you are dishonest and possibly on drugs if not actually an employee of Dick Cheney.
It just makes no sense, is all they hijack planes to crash into buildings then use a missile to hit the pentagon? How did the missile knock down the light posts?
Again: why do you refuse to acknowledge that there are multitudes of experts who disagree with the official story? I've asked you about ten times now, Mr. Cheney.
the jet fuel wasn't burning not long after the attacks, what was burning as you put it "poorly" was the tables desks, walls chairs, and fucking people in that building.
if chairs and furniture and bodies were on fire, how exactly would it produce a pyroclastic cloud clearly visible on the videos? are you aware of what a pyroclastic cloud is?
there were no fires on the streets, no burning desks on the street, or burning bodies on the streets. how would the heat of a visibly poorly burning fire in a collapsed building produce a pyroclastic event hot enough to melt cars for blocks surrounding?
do you know what a pyroclastic cloud is or did some one just tell you that's what was happening and you believed it? (I'm not being mean i just wanna know how you came to that conclusion)
the dust was form from the ash from fires, the pulverized concrete as from the buildings collapsing and the asbestos the building was full of.
the cars were not melted, they were set on fire by the debris falling on them, how is it you can sit there and see the "cloud" melted cars and yet no person was melted by the even? no bones found in the street of a "melted" person due to the cloud?
Please I would ask you to not personally attack me I am not a "liar" I don't even understand how you came to that conclusion.
"I'm also familiar with thermite and pyroclastic combustion products."
you are? how so? are you a specialist? or did you just read about with others said they do and could have done here.
Then tell me this, these conspiracies always have a tell they always seem to mess shit up so bad as to give people a reason to doubt, if you planned the 911 attacks do you think you could get them right? no trails? no evidence? or would you leave it all kinda out there so someone could find it.
"I'm also familiar with thermite and pyroclastic combustion products." you are? how so? are you a specialist? or did you just read about with others said they do and could have done here.
I've burned thermite twice -- small quantities (around 1kg), but that's all you'll need to experience pyroclastic smoke. That, or a volcano.
Anybody can purchase the ingredients for thermite. I would suggest that you place your order on June 10th and plead with the supply company to get you the ingredients you need in time for the patriotic display you have planned for the 4th of July. That worked well for me.
If you would like to see pyroclastic smoke from burning thermite on concrete, you could be like me: use thermite to demolish the part of the sidewalk you need to replace. Beats the shit out of using a jack-hammer, and the neighbors love it.
I got that idea from our college chem lab, when we accidentally burned a hole in the concrete sidewalk, attempting to simply burn a little thermite "someplace safe."
or did you just read about with others said they do and could have done here.
Fuck you, too.
or would you leave it all kinda out there so someone could find it.
The people who did this only need to fool the majority of people. They were over-confident, perhaps.
And if I were going to take buildings down in a controlled demolition, I would have no choice but to use demolition explosives, same as them.
interesting, youve worked with it cool! how did ti bring the building down? how did it pulverize the concrete?
please don't attack me stop saying "fuck you" if you don't want to talk don't attack me because i don't believe everything you do. Out of the 10 people who have replied 1 was nice about it, you make the reddit look ignorant like alex jones, so please don't disrespect.
please don't attack me stop saying "fuck you" if you don't want to talk don't attack me because i don't believe everything you do.
Fuck you. Your dismissive tone is exceedingly offensive. "you are? how so? ... or did you just read about with others...."
Shut the fuck up. Regarding your stupid questions, you are trying to sound like a "rational skeptic" but asking what are actually stupid questions, in a tone intended to dismiss the answers. You want to believe 9/11 was an attack using jet planes, fine, what do I care?
Then tell me this, these conspiracies always have a tell they always seem to mess shit up so bad as to give people a reason to doubt
This is already explained by Eric Berne around 1960. This is what he calls "being a Schlemiel criminal." You may or may not have time to learn that material, but if you don't, we really aren't going to be able to converse at the same level with regard to why they always fuck it up.
Ok so they exploded? how so with what? what was used to "explode" the towers?
the basic laws of physics? do you have a degree? or do you just hear others saying this and accept their conclusion (I'm not being mean I just want to know how you came up with this)
And you can't be sure I'm wrong so stop telling me I am, the evidence for this is circumstantial and "up for interpretation" stop saying I'm wrong it doesn't make me wrong and it doesn't make you right.
please stop attacking me personally, that's just disrespectful.
if a 2 story building collapsed dust shoots out as the floors topple its simple,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p7G4hpvUn4 if that one wall could make that huge cloud just imagine a 110 story building.
how so? All i was doing was asking questions, amazingly I did get one person the actually like to discuss this and not just ignore me because I have a different point of view. At least I can talk to them :-)
OMFG you have... did you get that degree from an off-shore university? What the fuck kind of mechanical engineer with a minor in physics has this little clue?
Watch until the police officer testimony. I know it gets dull, but hang in there. Feel free to skip the cemetery employees and then jump to the bit with the cab driver. Be certain you watch the part when he does not know he is being recorded.
I don't want to talk about anything other than your assertion that experts agree with the cover story. Multiple times, I have pointed out to you that there are fucking organizations of experts, pilots, architects, and engineers, who assert that the cover story must be false.
You refuse to address that, and instead use information given to you by others in an attempt to draw me in to some tangent. Increasingly, I think you are a well-trained diversionary operative. The tell-tale sign will be if you don't respond to the fact that actual experts disagree with you, or if you refuse to watch that video that I have posted for you, twice.
That's an interesting speculation. It doesn't seem to explain the failure of momentum to be conserved.
... While the Pentagon was steel re-enforced concrete designed to resist such attacks
That point doesn't make sense in light of the penetration of the "aircraft" into the C ring. If you think the fuel of the plane could not penetrate the pentagon walls, how do you think it is possible for the aircraft to have penetrated through five of these reinforced concrete walls? Some people forget that the fuselage is made of very thin aluminum. Only the spars and keel are particularly solid, and those certainly don't explain the curiously circular hole in the C-ring wall.
At this point I think I've established that you can't look at evidence and interpret it without bias. Momentum is momentum. The fuel was either moving at 500mph and miraculously came to a sudden stop, or it was never moving to begin with.
You know what would make more sense? That the Pentagon had a high-tech kerosene shield made of invisible energy.
But still about the drills, maybe you not in particular but most people would see that it happened recently and deduce it as evidence for a coverup/conspiracy.
Besides why plan the drills on the same day, to confuse? I'm sure the people planning this "false flag" didn't think it would be fishy when there was an investigation.
154 comments
10 Weltall82 2013-02-01
that is asinine. completely asinine.
compartmentalization. without even a basic understanding of how intelligence services use this, you can not talk intelligently about them.
questioning claims is not a belief system. skepticism is not a belief system, but a toolkit. too many skeptics are too liberal with their judgement too quickly to befit skepticism.
lastly, it seems literally not a single one of you debunker types has considered that the nonsense claims of conspiracy theorists can be manufactured by people other than conspiracy theorists.
ps: the narrative the mainstream is pushing about aurora is clownshoes. why did holmes have two fucking iphones, one only for taking pictures of the theater and of himself with funny contacts?
pps: the official theory of 9/11 is clownshoes. fuck nist, and fuck you if you think they did enough to declare incontrovertible truth without even testing for explosives, which was and still is a lawfully mandated standard procedure of investigation. the evidence of the towers was also criminally disposed of by shipping it overseas as quickly as possible for melting. what fuckwit would sign off on that? if you were a detective assigned to a case and disposed of evidence you'd be canned, at least.
hey, but good luck with your conspiracy free belief system supported and encouraged by any and all establishment agents.
-2 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
i agree with the first half of your saying at least until you talk about "clown shoes"
My tool kit is no different than yours I'm just coming to different conclusions and I want to know why. I just wanna know are these the kind of people that see any event take place and think "there's something behind this and its the government" or do you look thought the evidence and see.
what conspiracies are in support or and which do you deny?
and PPS? Please don't get angry no need to say "fuck you" to me I'm just asking questions if you have a problem with that then ignore me.
And lawfully mandated? where I'm not saying it isn't but where is that stated that during a building collapse? terrorist attack? plane crash? its mandated to test for explosives? or just any general investigation?
and sending the materials overseas quickly I've never looked into that but my initial thinking is maybe safety for the NYC population, the building was full of asbestos so something had to be done about that, on top of that where should they have kept the materials? on a barge? 5th ave? 6th ave? its NYC not a storage yard.
4 [deleted] 2013-02-01
Why did you post this here? Why not r/conspiritard?
Why are you so angry?
Plenty of people change their opinions about things after learning new facts. If you wanted to share that with us, please be respectful about it. If you were you might actually sway people to your side of the argument.
0 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
I wasn't angry in anything i said, if you think i was being I'm sorry you feel that. I just want to know why it is when ever i make a comment in support of anything in r/conspiracy that is factual against the conspiracy I'm just told "your brain washed" "you need to look at the "facts"" or "your wrong"
to me this r/conspiracy is more of a fanfiction group what kinda scenario can you think of and support with any evidence.
2 [deleted] 2013-02-01
I got the feeling you were angry from some of the language choices.
I guarantee you will find respectful replies if you frame your initial post differently.
Instead of telling us, "you are wrong because of [insert evidence]" you should ask us "what does this [insert evidence] mean in relation to this conspiracy?"
The difference is between asking and telling. Any statement can be framed as a question. I had to do exactly that last week when I was wondering about WTC7.
Just like any subreddit there will be rude assholes, but if you respectfully ask a question you will likely find other respectful people willing to have an actual mature argument about it.
Don't give up on this subreddit we're not all douchebags.
1 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
I'm being respectful and still being told I am a liar and fool and brain washed.
2 [deleted] 2013-02-01
Well people always will get passionate and defensive about this stuff. Any good conspiracy theorist will try to disprove his own theory. That is the only way to fill in all the gaps and get a complete picture of what happened. If you don't believe in the conspiracy and want the opinions of people who do you should approach it though you do believe it but just want clarification on specific things that don't add up. It's not likely that anyone will change their beliefs about this stuff from yours, or anyone's comments here but you can bring certain points about them to light.
Just like how if you don't believe in god but want to go talk to r/christianity about it you will find more responses by saying I think I believe in god but I'm not sure because of such and such. Get them to poke holes in their own beliefs. Or find the answers you weren't aware of and possibly change your own beliefs.
For example, if you believe a plane did hit the Pentagon, but you want to debate it with us here, ask "okay if it was not a plane, then what was it? A cruise missile? Okay where was that fired from? Under who's orders?" etc. All without being provocative, just looking for honest answers to questions. Like someone who just moved to the US and didn't even know 9/11 ever happened until today. When people can't come up with an answer, that's a hole in the story right there. And they should either realize that, or be polite and say well that information has not been revealed to anyone yet.
Having said all that, this subreddit has some of the worst circlejerking I've ever seen and I don't blame you for getting frustrated with us.
1 Hippo_Stalker 2013-02-01
Our thread below has gotten so long that reddit will not let me see your post to reply to it!
Ok, thank you. By the way, that's not a system.
Ok, so if I can summarize what I think you said:
I am going to go along with that explanation for a few posts here. I don't necessarily disagree with you, either.
What do you suppose the alternative would have been if the wall of WTC2 had been stronger? Is it possible the fuel might have bounced off the building, or what would have happened, hypothetically, if the wall had been impermeable? About the only alternative to "bouncing" I can think of is the fuel might have spread out laterally on the surface of the building until it reached the edge, then continued forward. I think bouncing is more likely, but we would need to simulate the fluid dynamics to really know. I'm just asking you to speculate.
Also, do you think there is anything they could have done to the wall of WTC2 that would have caused the fuel not to penetrate, to lose its momentum, and to make a mushroom cloud traveling upward via convective currents?
1 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
the only way to have stopped the fuel would have been stopping the plane.
Maybe the plane could have penetrated into the building and not out the other side, in that case i would see the possibility of the fuel being trapped inside but even then the fuel combusted which would cause a huge inward gust of air (possibly imploding the windows) causing the fuel to spread out in all directions, since the fuel vapors are what burn it would act as a gas exploding in every direction causing the fire ball as we see it.
the only way i see a mushroom cloud forming is if there was ground surrounding the area, but since the impact was in the air i cannot see this possibility.
1 Hippo_Stalker 2013-02-01
How would the presence of ground affect the momentum of the jet fuel? Are you thinking of friction?
I am more wondering if there is a type of construction, or a configuration of the ground and building, so that the plane could be travelling 600 mph, and the fuel explosion would be a mushroom cloud.
I think the only way this could have happened is if the fuel had first come to a stop prior to exploding. That is, the fuel trapped in the building after the impact, might have made a vertically-extending fire inside the building. That would have required at least a couple of seconds for the fuel to come to "rest", I would imagine.
Would you agree that unless the fuel comes to rest, the explosion will not be predominantly vertical? That if the fuel explodes immediately when traveling 600 mph, that momentum is going to be reflected in the shape of the explosion?
1 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
yes, I'm picturing that would would have to happen is the fuel come to rest or near rest. The idea of the floor/ground is that the fuel couldn't form a fire ball and would move upward and out rather than in all directions.
1 Hippo_Stalker 2013-02-01
How long would be required for that to happen, you think? At least 1 or 2 seconds?
I have no idea what you mean by this -- the collision was in the air, but are saying if it had been a ground-level hit, we might have seen the fuel spread out all over the ground and burn? I could see that, since the plane was headed slightly downward. I just can't figure out what you mean by this.
OK. This isn't the garden path I actually meant to be on, so this particular thought we can let go for now. I just want to focus on the first 1-2 seconds after the impact.
It sounds like we agree that fireball developing with only wind speed for its lateral motion could not have happened in the first 1-2 seconds. I wanted to mention wind speed, because of course that would skew the fireball slightly off vertical. But of course, that isn't what we see. We see that the explosion is horizontal and even downward, because the fuel has so much momentum. After all, momentum is proportional to the square of the velocity, so 600mph is a huge factor.
Here's a decent video of the WTC 2 impact, of course there are many others:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFiEgwLQVJk
It is worth noting that these videos were captured by news crews and amateurs, and we have lots of angles with which to view the WTC 2 impact and explosion. I don't think it could be possible that these videos were all faked by the perpetrators. So I think you are going to have to agree that the momentum of the jet fuel, and the effect that had on the subsequent fireball, is well documented. Would you agree?
1 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
What i see is the impact, the fire ball then the remaining fuel being burnt, traveling up in fireball fashion due to wind, settling in the building.
the smoke looks like a mushroom cloud, but that's the smoke, the after math of the fire ball(for the most part) with some remaining fuel burning in it as well.
1 Hippo_Stalker 2013-02-01
I mostly agree with you, except:
It looks to me like the fireball predominantly comes out the far side of the building, that there is practically zero fireball on the side with the impact. In other words, very little fuel bounced.
Would you agree with that slight correction?
1 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
I'm looking at the videos now and i see this. 1.the fuel travels out the exit hole as we agreed on (momentum of the fuel) 2. the fuel ignites while in the building traveling out the exit hole 3. the fuel is continuing to burn inside the cloud 4. the cloud is rising due to the high temperatures, pulling up the remaining fuel with it 5 this in-sequence causes the fuel to fireball upward rather than in all directions. the convection currents caused by the explosion draws the fuel up, forming a "mushroom cloud"
1 Hippo_Stalker 2013-02-01
This all seems to me like exactly what we should expect to happen when a plane at high speed crashes full of kerosene. In fact, there are dozens of plane crash videos on youtube, which make for morbid watching, but support the idea that the momentum of the fuel is very important.
Now, let's get to the reason I walked you down this path. You and I agree that planes struck the WTC towers, even if we disagree on whether that is why the towers collapsed. But that is not the disagreement I am getting at.
Having watched the video interviews with ten eye witnesses, including two police officers, I don't believe the plane which flew toward the pentagon either, (a) knocked down the light poles, or (b) caused the explosion of the pentagon.
To that end, I want to show you something that doesn't look quite right. As you may know, the government released "footage" from a pentagon gate security camera. You can view it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbxEX6Y5mQk
(First 1:10 are uneventful.)
Before you watch it from the beginning, let me assist you in not making any quick errors:
Check out the wind speed blowing the smoke cloud at 2:10-2:55, when we can be sure there is only wind to explain the right-to-left motion of the smoke.
Now check out the kerosene explosion. Where did all that momentum go?
The video is faked. Don't ask me why the people who faked it were unable to do a good job, or what the motives of the perpetrators might have been. Those are irrelevant tangents to the question of whether that fireball could reasonable have been caused by even a 300mph jet airliner collision.
I have tried to open your eyes to some psychology previously, but it is a soft science. I am not saying that I don't have my own ideas as to why the people who faked this video screwed up, I do. I am just saying I don't want to discuss psychology with you because that really is a matter of opinion, not science. It also really doesn't matter if my psychological theories are wrong or right -- what matters is that all evidence indicates that the official story of flight 77 hitting the pentagon cannot be believed.
I also wonder if you ever watched the video which has the hidden camera footage of the "cab driver eye witness" admitting that he is part of a cover-up.
1 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
What I see is the plane crashing into the ground maybe 10-20 feet in-front of the building (cant be sure of how far) and possibly having the furl exploding as it hits the building (rather than having the plane hit the building causing the explosion)
We also have to take into account the differences in the buildings the WTC was built around a core meaning the entry of the plane was very easy (glass and non-structural metal facade) While the Pentagon was steel re-enforced concrete designed to resist such attacks
Possibilities 1. the plane impacted the ground before the pentagon causing the fireball to start outside the building, then slow down enough to billow into a cloud as it continued into the building.
2 the plane impacted a building made from much stronger materials, materials that could reduce the momentum of the fuel/impact to cause the billowing cloud much sooner.
This is on top of low resolution low frame rate video and those frames are the issue, we cant be sure that the plane hit the ground or building first but in either case It wouldn't behave similarly to the WTC impacts.
1 Hippo_Stalker 2013-02-01
That's an interesting speculation. It doesn't seem to explain the failure of momentum to be conserved.
That point doesn't make sense in light of the penetration of the "aircraft" into the C ring. If you think the fuel of the plane could not penetrate the pentagon walls, how do you think it is possible for the aircraft to have penetrated through five of these reinforced concrete walls? Some people forget that the fuselage is made of very thin aluminum. Only the spars and keel are particularly solid, and those certainly don't explain the curiously circular hole in the C-ring wall.
At this point I think I've established that you can't look at evidence and interpret it without bias. Momentum is momentum. The fuel was either moving at 500mph and miraculously came to a sudden stop, or it was never moving to begin with.
You know what would make more sense? That the Pentagon had a high-tech kerosene shield made of invisible energy.
1 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
The fuel is contained in the wings which of little mass relative to the rest of the plane would have ruptured when they hit the side of the building(or ground)
Although the plane is made of aluminum and relative to other materials if light it is still between 150 and 225 tons, focused at the center of the crash was well over 80 - 120 tons (dry) would have been focused at the center of impact. F=MV2 so the amount of force focused on the center of impact is enormous.
To me this Impact looks as though 1. the wings impacted the building and ruptured 2. the fuel being a liquid and in combustion caused very little damage to the out side of the building as it was unrestricted (back and up ward) it took the path of least resistance and went up (causing the instant fireball/ burning cloud) 3. the remaining mass focused at the center of impact was able to push though the building.
in comparison wings vs fuselage , the wings are like balloons (the mass comes from the fuel) while the fuselage is like a brick
they could both be the same mass and cause very different impacts on a structure: while throwing a balloon at a wall (low to the ground) would cause the liquid to stop almost immediate and burst upward , while throwing a brick at the same wall could cause damage to the wall
2 Hippo_Stalker 2013-02-01
Two problems with this: (1) if you threw a water balloon at 600 mph, it would act like a rock, (2) the jet fuel in the fake video doesn't jet upward, bounce off, or continue forward. It has zero momentum and instantaneously decelerates from 600mph to 0mph. That's not possible.
0 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
yeah but you are assuming its impacting on the building, not the ground first. my other reply looking at the video explains my though.
for all you know the fireball started 20 feet in-front of the building and that is what impacted the wall and stopped, and begin billowing up.
2 Hippo_Stalker 2013-02-01
You forgot about vector components. The maximum angle that plane would be making is, what? 5 degrees? Think about the dot product, physics minor dude... The fuel has to keep moving horizontally or Isaac Newton was wrong.
It also seems rather impossible that the plane could have hit the ground and not left a mark, which it didn't. There are multiple photos of this.
0 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
just look back at the WTC second crash the plane hits and the fireball explodes out the other side and almost immediately begins billowing up. Looking at the pentagon video assuming that during the choppy frame the plane impacted and exploded in-front of the building and then continued into the side. This it roughly the same amount of time it took the WTC fire ball to go from moving in the direction of the plane to billowing up. That lack of video preciseness is what causes the problem. On top of that unlike the WTC the pentagon fireball would have faced a much stronger wall.
"I see a fireball that has zero momentum" it only took a second after the fireball in the WTC exited the building to have no momentum in the direction of impact and billow upward
"rebar bent outward." could you provide some examples?
I must say this has changed into a good discussion that has ultimately re-enforced my thoughts on what happened. This is the kind of conversation I was looking for originally.
I haven't watched the CIT video yet as i am still going over the physics of what happened with you, though now i don't think there is much more for you to say to convince me other wise than what I have told you I will take a look (I still don't believe that eye-witnesses are the best source but I'll look)
I know you don't like these kinds of questions but. What caused the light poles to be knocked down? Was it simply to give evidence of the plane? If so why not just claim the plane took a steeper approach rather than go through the work of "faking" evidence?
And I see you didn't mention them again, light poles, street and highway signs are all designed to "break away"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zgzM8DKVx5I#t=332s
They are also used on light poles and traffic lights.
Sorry for late reply I've been working all day.
1 TheTruthWasOutThere 2013-02-01
You don't have to keep repeating your theory. I get what you are trying to say, and no amount of repetition is going to validate your fallacy.
You seem to be saying that the fuel hit the ground, then continued forward, then flowed up the wall of the pentagon. Or are you saying that it began to burn immediately, and none of it flowed up the wall, because it had already all burned up? It really doesn't seem believable that the fuel would for some reason stop because it is burning -- WTC 2 fuel didn't do that.
There are plenty of photos showing outward bent columns and rebard, prior to the collapse. You can search for more rather than ask me to do that for you. Columns bent outward:
http://911review.org/Wget/investigate911.batcave.net/6-4ba.jpg
Really? Time that a little more carefully.
You like to ignore anything which discredits your theory, I get that.
YES.
It was necessary that the plane's purported trajectory match the damage pattern.
I really do not think that is relevant when answering the question "why did the poles not wreck the airplane when it struck them?" One reason the break-away poles aren't relevant is that the poles did not break away, before they broke in two near the top. You obviously haven't looked into this, you like to just state generalities without looking at the evidence. A second reason is that the poles are designed to break away from a less than 100 mph impact at near ground level, not from a 600mph impact near their top. You need to stop conflating things that happen at 600mph with things that happen at water-balloon speeds.
IF the poles were broken at the top by flight 77, then flight 77 would have had equal damage to its wing. And do not try to tell me that poles broke on the ground, you need to look at the damage on the poles before you go that mistaken route. The faked damage is supposed to look like an airplane struck the poles.
What happened to your lack of job?
0 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GHM5f9lVho
^ just watched that about Lloyde, honestly it seemed like a confused old man talking. I'm not saying what he is saying isn't true or some cover up, but could more likely be a confused shook up person after the events. I'm sure if a pole fell down onto my car while i was driving I might over look exactly where I was at the time of the incidence (on the bridge or near) as my goal would be self preservation. Being in a accident like that with the possibility of being killed thought the wind screen I'm sure what I remember would be cloudy on the specifics of where exactly it happened, how fast i was going and maybe even where i was immediately coming from.
The second part of him just talking about the "bigger picture" sounds like anything I would hear for an old person who might believe the conspiracies.
I don't see this one incident as proof of anything.
And its up for interpretation i.e. taking pictures on the bridge yeah sounds like it means a lot but there's no background to the question could be people taking pictures that were shown but could be people taking pics for insurance claim (lack of clarification isn't proof of the theory)
There were other cars on the bridge, maybe if there was testimony form them it might make it more believable but one old guy rambling isn't a good eye witness.
AND on a personal note "lack of job" doesn't mean I don't work, I am currently installing a kitchen into my brothers house during the day, while having phone interviews with a local employment opportunity.
So it seems at this point unless you have some hidden chest of good evidence I will not be convinced of any conspiracy in the events of 911. I will say this though the one and only thing I see as fishy is that Bush after hearing of the attacks sat in the class room for 20 minutes. The only reason i find this fishy is, 2 planes were still not account for (were also continental flights), while he sat in a disclosed location. Could be that the secret service just shit the bed on that lack of protection by not pulling him out immediately. For all they knew one of those planes could have been on its way to that school where he was known to be. And that all that really brought me to this reddit.
I know building 7 is a biggie for a lot of people got anything on that?
Or are there any other main stream conspiracies you support? JFK? Chem-trails? Moon landing? HARRP? Hollow Earth?
1 TheTruthWasOutThere 2013-02-01
Well I guess there is no getting through to you. That "confused old man" sure wasn't confused when he knew the camera was on, now was he?
Why was the hood of his car undamaged by this light pole? Why are the light poles heavily damaged at the top, but the plane kept flying?
And why were the two police officers absolutely sure that the plane could not have flown the official path?
JFK: Obvious cover-up. Again with the momentum being all wrong. George Bush Sr. was involved in this one.
Chem-trails: Sounds bizarre to me. I'm not sure I would call this "main stream," either.
Moon landing: I have no idea, assume it's not fake.
HAARP: I know what HAARP is for, but if I told you, they would have to kill you. It's not about earthquakes, I'll tell you that.
Hollow Earth: Please be serious. That is not a main-stream conspiracy. For that matter, it is not, in and of itself, a conspiracy theory. It's a geological theory or something.
I think this has been really great for the Internet, and useless for you. Personally, I had never noticed that the fireball is so obviously fake in the fake pentagon video. This conversation was excellent in that many people have now had this pointed out to them.
You neglected to notice that the plane was coming at the viewer, but the fuel didn't. You know what a dot product is, I hope?
Wow, I am shocked you would admit this is a glaring problem in the official reaction.
What do you think about the amazing coincidence that there was a same-day drill involving simulated hijacked planes? Amazing coincidence?
This isn't true. There were no other purported eye-witnesses to the poles being hit. See if you can find one. There were cars which arrived later but Lloyd was supposedly the only eye witness.
I would have to turn to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth on that one. What do they say about it?
1 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
"HAARP: I know what HAARP is for, but if I told you, they would have to kill you. It's not about earthquakes, I'll tell you that." so why haven't they killed you?
And yeah I do believe it was a coincidence, besides if the drill was a week or a month earlier they would still make the same argument, that "they were training for this same scenario a week before coincidence!?" I feel it would go something like this "And can you believe they were training for a similar incident in April, a plane hitting a building in Manhattan. Now where could they have gotten that idea from, it had never been done before. Could it be they were working out scenarios that could invoke a cause for war?"
Ill take a look at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth tomorrow.
1 TheTruthWasOutThere 2013-02-01
Well, generally speaking, that's different.
You should stop it with both your attempts at psychology and your counterfactual hypotheticals. The drills weren't for a week later or earlier, or a month, they were for the same day. There is a difference between something happening simultaneously and something happening relatively proximate in time.
1 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
But still about the drills, maybe you not in particular but most people would see that it happened recently and deduce it as evidence for a coverup/conspiracy.
Besides why plan the drills on the same day, to confuse? I'm sure the people planning this "false flag" didn't think it would be fishy when there was an investigation.
1 TheTruthWasOutThere 2013-02-01
That is a counterfactual hypothetical. In the sense of Karl Popper, it is not falsifiable, and therefore not a scientific question.
Yes, to confuse and to delay a response as well as to make it difficult to track the actual path of the planes.
They don't care. They are dealing with two kinds of people: 90% of the U.S. are sheep who won't question them. The other 10%, they want to frighten, not fool. You cannot fool all of the people all of the time. Therefore, you fool 90% and frighten the rest into silence.
Besides, they tried to appoint Kissinger to the investigation, although that fell through. If you know anything about Mr. Bomb Cambodia Illegally, you know that appointing him to an investigation is good for guaranteed cover-up, especially for good old boys Cheney and Bush. The people who perpetrated this controlled the "investigation," Hippo.
1 Hippo_Stalker 2013-02-01
I'm only concerned with the momentum of the fuel, which does not depend on the mass of its container.
Kerosene is pretty heavy.
Your statement that the fuselage is heavy is false. There is a beam which runs the length of the fuselage, and that is dense (none of this stuff should be called heavy, let's say dense). But the beam, called the keel, is a small part of the fuselage. The skin of the airplane is thin.
Also, don't forget that there is a center fuel tank to consider with 1/3 of the fuel in it. That tank happens to be in the most solid part of the aircraft, the so-called "wing box."
1 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
yes the mass of the container is low, and the mass of the fuel is high in comparison. The difference between the fuel hitting a building and the keel is astronomical.
The fuel being liquid would hit the building as it was igniting which would bounce off (like when talking about the WTC) the fuel in this case had a wall of high strength going up against it causing the fuel to blast upward as in the video and ignite mostly on the exterior of the building into the cloud
The remaining 1/3 of the fuel would have entered the building with the keel causing the fire that cause the structural failure there in.
the keel being majority of the mass of the plane, this would also account for the small entry hole and exit hold found in the pictures (most people argue that they hole isn't big enough for the plane but the mass being at the keel would make this seem more probable as the cause of the smaller hole than expected)
1 Hippo_Stalker 2013-02-01
This is all great speculation. The problem is the video. The video doesn't show the fuel bouncing or splashing as if in an elastic collision. (At 600 mpg, treating as a liquid in viscous flow is wrong. It makes more sense to treat it as a hydraulic solid. Compare to the effect of hitting water at 120mph, as if falling with no parachute. At that speed, water is like a solid surface.)
What do you think the cross-section of the keel is, by the way? It's much too small to have caused the hole in the C-ring.
The main point here is this: the explosion in the fake pentagon video doesn't show any evidence of momentum being conserved in any direction. The fuel doesn't carry forward, as it does at the WTC. The fuel does not bounce. The fuel does not jet upward into the air.
Rather, what we see in the fake video is a fireball that is 100% consistent with motionless kerosene being exploded. The only motion of the fireball is due to wind.
And no matter how hard you try, you can't explain that, because it is inexplicable. If it makes sense in your head, I'm sorry for you. Honestly sorry that you are so much in the thrall of the people who did this, that you have forgotten your physics minor, and now you are synthesizing whole new crappy explanations.
You need to scroll up to the point 5 messages above in which I asked you if there was any wall construction technique that would have resulted in this effect at WTC 2. Of course there isn't. What this video purports to show is not possible according to the laws of physics. And I'll have you know I made it through Quantum Chromodynamics, so I feel free to quote the laws of physics.
Others have criticized this fake video for various image forensics flaws. For example, the white smoke casts no shadow. The time signature does not increment correctly.
You are faced with overwhelming evidence:
I think the reason you can't understand what really happened is that you're a young idealist. You want to believe the United States is a good nation, a country to be proud of. Well, it is, but some of our presidents have been genocidal Satanists. Prescott Bush was a supporter of the Nazis during WW2. George Bush Sr. was deeply involved in CRP and Watergate, and probably the JFK assassination. George Bush Jr. was one of the parties behind 9/11 and used it as an excuse to wage war against a nation that had nothing to do with it.
The U.S. is still a country with great potential, but we have to clean up our own house. We have a number of evil people in positions of power. These people are feeding you lies and chemicals to make you swallow the lies.
By the way -- if you claim the wings of the plane are so fragile, how is that they could take out 3 light poles each? The light poles were built to withstand car impacts. The wing leading edges (not the spar) were not built to withstand impacts. If 77 hit these poles, why was it not leaking fuel or already on fire when it hit? OTHER planes crash when they hit things like power lines. This plane somehow flew through SIX light poles? Come on....
I believed 9/11 was real for a short while -- about four hours. I was watching the news coverage when CNN stated that the FBI had told them they had found a passport of one Mohammad Atta in the rubble, thus indicating that this was a terrorist attack.
Seriously? The passport survived that impact and fireball, then fluttered down to the FBI agent? My ass. I'm older than you. I've seen more than one US government cover-up. When they put forward a statement as ridiculous as the found passport, that is a red flag.
1 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
I'm not an idealist. And this is where my problem with conspiracy comes in, simply that as I am trying to debunk them, you will not accept any alternative points of view (not you personally) the problem mean that you (and everyone) have the ideas cemented in their head and even if overwhelming evidence surfaces its faked, or a cover up or wrong.
What really gets me is the people who watch videos and hear people spout their theories and don't question, but once its a news program, article, or report that says the opposite of what they believe its the government trying to stop them.
Wings hitting light poles: you do know that they are not designed for car impacts? Poles and signs are designed to "break away" to prevent the occupants in the car from being killed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3h6PQtJGsM
comparing power lines to light poles? cutting a light pole is the going to cause damage to the wing but impacting a cable is much different (not to mention the electric impact)
If you know anything about materials you would know that a hollow tube (light pole) would be much much easier to break on impact than an inch thick or braided wire.
Passport: Yeah sounds crazy maybe they were just trying to find their scape goat. Or is it that truth is stranger than fiction? Do you really think that the FBI didn't "this looks fishy"
The thing is if they didn't release the pass port when they found it (assuming everything is true) and waited a few days than there would just be some conspiracy about them not releasing the info, what where they looking for in the pass port? did they change something in it?
And this is my point... it doesn't matter what happens there will always be someone claiming the conspiracy, propagating doubt and finding people with wallets to support them. You would think if you ran an organization that wanted the truth you would give it out for free. Not charge 49.99 for Pilots for 911, not saying its a bad group but if you want your message heard why profit from it?
Tell me, what is you explanation to this, start to finish from the time of hijacking till building 7?
And lest try and have one reply back and forth at time were getting scattered brained again.
1 TheTruthWasOutThere 2013-02-01
It's not "simply that you are you are trying to debunk me" that I have decided you can't see the evidence clearly.
Your attempt to debunk the fakeness of the video relies on laws of physics no longer applying to that one plane. It's not a simple attempt, it's ridiculous. This is why people start to wonder what it is about your mental state that is creating this mental block.
This is completely wrong. Although I knew 9/11 was fake about four hours after it happened, it was years before I knew that flight 77 did not hit the pentagon. I'm very open to new evidence, and at this point the question in my mind is whether the pentagon was struck by a missile or whether explosives were planted inside. Based on the damage, it appears to me that explosives were inside the C ring, and blasted outward. But I am not sure and haven't decided, and there is also the possibility of both a missile and explosives. The one thing I'm sure of is that it was not flight 77.
Your supposition about wires vs. poles does not match mine. The poles were much more massive than power lines, you seem to have forgotten. What holds the "cables" to the poles? Ceramic stand-offs are usually a lot more fragile than you seem to think.
Now wait a minute... why would they need a scape goat?
As for the FBI realizing it looks fishy and all subsequent, now you are getting into the psychology of the actors, which you really do not get.
For that, I would have to turn to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. And nobody should expect me to explain how it was done; I wasn't part of the crime. However, you can see for yourself that persons with graduate degrees in Architecture and Engineering tell us that the official story is not possible.
...
Regarding the passport, I would be the first to agree that, sometimes, truth is stranger than fiction. However, that's no excuse to believe the impossible. The idea that a paper passport would survive the impact, the fire, and the collapse of the buildings, and then be found in the rubble... isn't just odd, it's preposterous.
That the FBI would immediately release the person's name, without being certain that they had the right accusation, is also preposterous.
1 Hippo_Stalker 2013-02-01
Just so you are aware... The mass of an empty 757 is 58,000 kg and the fuel of a full 757 weighs about 60,000 kg.
The keel is going to be a small fraction of that 58,000kg, but let's be generous and call it 5%. That would be 2,900 kg. Let's assume it was travelling 885 km/h. The momentum of the hypothetical keel would be: 175M joules.
Let's say the fuel tanks were 75% empty, so that is only 15,000 kg of kerosene. The momentum of the fuel would be 906M joules.
In terms of the speed of sound in kerosene, the plane hit at 20% of the speed of sound in kerosene. IF the plane came to a sudden stop on impact with the Pentagon, we should therfore expect a shock wave in the fuel, caused by the impact at the front of the tank propagating to the back of the tank, and probably blowing some of the fuel backward and out of the tank, which is, as you mentioned, comparatively flimsy compared to these forces...
But none of that happened, instead there is this lazy kerosene fireball that is only moving with the wind, nothing else. It just doesn't fly. haha
1 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
where are you getting the number though? the 5% weight of the keel, and that the plane would be 75% empty? Is this an assumption?
The plane was flying to LA, the path it took maybe used 1/6th of the fuel (3000 mile journey that was cut to only 500 mile give or take) In that case I would argue that the tanks were 75-80% full not empty.
If the mass of the keel is only 5% the total of the dry weight that means at least half the remaining mass is the center fuselage (assuming the wings account together for the remaining half) that means 29,000 kg hit the center of impact (This is a huge force of impact, reinforced with the strength and added mass of the keel)
Standing by my argument that the plane possibly hit the ground first we see that the wings ruptured (like throwing a water balloon on the ground), the fuel continued until it met 2 feet of re-enforced concrete. By the time the fuel hit the building it began to burn. due to the choppy video this is my best assumption.
Shock wave: this is saying the plane directly impacted the wall of the pentagon, looking at the video it appears more likely that it impacted the ground first.
http://cdn.historycommons.org/images/events/382_pentagon_video.jpg
I know the pictures are not very good but just a reference as to when in the video i am speaking of.
Can we agree on the video, watching those two frames we can see something enter the picture on the right side at a very low level.
there's a large gap in-between
then we see the fire ball around the pentagon.
What do you see happening in this video? What is your explanation for this event?
1 Hippo_Stalker 2013-02-01
These are what a person calls conservative assumptions. I am skewing them in your favor, by making the keel overly massive, and underestimating the mass of the fuel. This is done to try to boost your argument while still disproving it. Otherwise, you might claim I had estimated to the detriment of your theory.
That supports my argument.
I see a fireball that has zero momentum and does not match any fireball from any other recorded plane crash I can find. I posted some videos for you of planes hitting the ground, they simply don't match.
Further, you seemed to think the center fuel tank continued forward, because you need to stipulate that in order to explain the plane hitting the ground but continuing forward. If so, there should have been fires inside the C ring, because that fuel would have continued forward. However, there are no such fires.
Furthermore, the C ring hole has no bricks displaced in the direction of the "impact", whereas the "entry" hole has rebar bent outward.
What's more, there are multiple pieces of evidence which corroborate that the plane was not on a flight path which matched the video.
Have you watched the CIT video yet? In particular, the part where the cab driver admits he is part of something he didn't mean to be involved in?
1 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
agreed it engulfs the exit side.
2 dieyoung 2013-02-01
If you have a monopoly on the creation of the money the entire planet uses for international trade and it costs you absolutely nothing to produce it, all other conspiracies are possible and completely feasible.
-1 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
so that makes them all true? If you gave me enough time i could give you substantial evidence of anything.
PBS caused 911, I'm sure if i looked hard enough i could prove it and we didn't land on the moon that was just a hoax to benefit walt disney.
If they have a monopoly on the creation of money why do anything? at all ever? you have the money what more could you want? power? no you already have that with the money? so its all for fun then?
3 dieyoung 2013-02-01
Did i say they were all true? No, i said they were feasible and completely in the realm of possibility.
Now, as for your last question, if you have all the money in the world, the next step is indeed raw power. Buying out foreign rulers and fomenting coups to establish western friendly dictators is not only possible but standard operating procedure. Having the monopoly on money is the prerequisite to control over individuals.
1 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
if you control the money you control the people, whats my motive to start a war? just for fun? if i have the money to buy anything why use war?
0 billsang1 2013-02-01
The war is for your mind and it looks like they have beaten you to a pulp!
1 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
you didn't answer my question, though not different than i expected you to reply with.
1 hewoisyouzthere 2013-02-01
War is always about getting more. More oil. More power. More money.
And I would have to imagine that part of it is that the money being made is on equipment and weapons used in war. If you go to war more of your product has to be bought.
I think the way you worded the question makes it hard to answer. Do you mean any war? Because the benefits of war differ from war to war.
I think in the world today we just want to feel safe. We want to all feel like our best interests are at the heart of the people we elect. When faced with conspiracy theories alot of people demand all the facts and yet fail to do so from the government or the mainstream story.
What you're doing here? You're questioning. You want people to PROVE to you that what they are saying is true. We want that too. We want the government to PROVE that what they said happened did indeed happen and when they can't we question, explore and try to understand. You're not that different, you know? It's just you're doing it in a different direction than people on this subreddit.
You should look up the list of conspiracy theories that have been proven in the past. It helps to understand why people are uneasy with mainstream stories that push an agenda.
1 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
if they print the money then how do they get more money? the just print it, so you saying they want more money makes no sense.
1 hewoisyouzthere 2013-02-01
Because the more money you print the less the dollar is valued at. They need already circulating dollars in order to keep the dollar where it is and still become richer. If it was possible to print more money with out serious inflation it would be done, but doing so would collapse the dollars worth and therefore is not a profitable since the inflation would be substantial.
2 [deleted] 2013-02-01
So your job is to inform people, why the heck would you give people the information that is not confirmed yet? Because they are trying to confuse people, it's all part of the game. Check similar news report 10 years ago, can you see information changing every day? No! Because it's really important time to fuck up peoples mind, it's a reality psyop.
2 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
no its not about confusing people its about being first, its about ratings.
first person on the scene gets some eye witness to spout what they think happened and tada! its news, thats it its ratings.
Why do you think they wanna confuse you?
1 [deleted] 2013-02-01
That's why we don't take mainstream media seriously anymore and start to read alternative one.
1 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
so don't claim that they are trying to confuse you, they arn't, they just want to be the first.
1 [deleted] 2013-02-01
haha sure
1 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
whats their motive to confuse you?
1 [deleted] 2013-02-01
I'm not confused actually, i'll enjoy this ride as others go along.
1 TheTruthWasOutThere 2013-02-01
I'd like to recommend that you stop replying to i8hippo2, and instead go through his post history and down-vote everything. This will make it more difficult for him to post his asinine insinuations masked in the form of questions.
0 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
wow you sir are the reason people are miss informed, someone has a different point of view and you push them out, how noble of you. I can do the same to you, you know :-D
1 TheTruthWasOutThere 2013-02-01
Your disinformation campaign is over, ass hat.
0 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
how so? All i was doing was asking questions, amazingly I did get one person the actually like to discuss this and not just ignore me because I have a different point of view. At least I can talk to them :-)
P.S. You are silly
1 TheTruthWasOutThere 2013-02-01
I have no problem with a person who has a different point of view. You aren't that person. You are a lying shill who asks purported questions such as "how does thermite pulverize concrete?" That is not a real question, and neither are any of your supposed questions. What you are is a disinformation operative.
0 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
what have I lied about? how is that a bad question?
1 TheTruthWasOutThere 2013-02-01
You have presented yourself as an open-minded person capable of understanding technical details. You are lying about at least one of these two things: (1) open-minded, (2) capable of understanding technical details.
How is that a bad question? Do you have any idea what temperature thermite reaches when burning? Or the water content of concrete? You can't put burning thermite in contact with concrete and not pulverize the concrete. I know for a fact: my first experience with thermite involved making the mistake of burning it on a concrete sidewalk, as I already wrote. At 4000 degrees F, what do you think will happen to concrete? Do you know anything about concrete to begin with, such as the fact that it has a very high water content?
But I don't know why I am replying to you. Your tactics make it clear that you are doing this on purpose and are probably someone's employee.
0 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
OH wow you actually explained something that's a first.
If i was someones employee I wouldn't waste my time with this non-sense, I'm out of college looking for a job found this thread interesting but had my own thoughts, turns out most of you are like you, mean, rude, and ignore any outside views, and just go on living with the thought somethings out there to get you.
1 TheTruthWasOutThere 2013-02-01
Another thing you have lied about is your statement elsewhere that all the experts agree with the 9/11 cover story. Nothing could be further from the truth. You insinuate that any person who does not believe the cover story is a mindless person regurgitating what others have said. In that regard, you are one of the biggest assholes on the Internet.
As for experts who do not agree with you, consider Pilots for 9/11 Truth. An organization of professional airline pilots, they argue that the NIST tapes from the supposed pentagon-striking flight are physically impossible. They also argue that flying the aircraft at the stated speeds is impossible. They want the truth, and certainly they are experts at flying commercial airliners.
Consider also Architects & Engineers for 9/11 truth. They assert the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, and that the official story is not possible. How many of these experts do you need to hear from?
Or consider the testimony of police officer eye-witnesses, which absolutely contradict the planted physical evidence:
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html
Watch that video to the end, including the hidden camera talk with the cab driver. Now tell me you either have had your eyes opened or admit that you work for the people who did this, or that you are somehow under their control.
1 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
whats their motive to confuse anyone?
2 VideoLinkBot 2013-02-01
Here are the collected video links posted in response to this post (deduplicated to the best of my ability):
1 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
and I agree lets go one step at a time, the system you and I have used is too scattered to get the responses we both would like.
The fire ball: It looks to me that the plane impacted the building and exploded during the impact, the wings were destroyed allowing the fuel to ignite in the building, along with that the plane was traveling at high speed, the fuel in the wings was traveling as fast as the plane, and would continue traveling out thought the building after the crash.
Simply: The fuel kept going in the straight line out the other side of the building.
0 grandmacaesar 2013-02-01
Please...show me this "credible evidence" you are speaking of.
Because I've looked for over 5 years, and I can't find a single picture or video of (a) a plane at the Pentagon, (b) a plane at Shanksville, or (c) a pile of "110 pancaked floors" (should be two piles). There were lots of pics and vids taken that day...please show me your "credible evidence".
The planes that "our" media tells us hit the Pentagon and crashed at Shanksville were over half a football field long, with wingspans of 125'. The tail stood 45' tall, and there were over 200 seats. Please find me a picture or video of one of the massive engines, the gargantuan landing gear, the wings, the tail, any of the miles of wiring, any seats, luggage, or bodies. Go to Google images, and start searching. I'll tell you what you will find: One single picture of one single scrap of aluminum, far out on the Pentagon lawn, with the focal length on the camera set to where you can't determine its size.
And if you can look at the "collapse" of WTC7, and you still think it fell due to fire (as "our" government says), you are an idiot.
Rather than demand proof of "inside job", I demand proof that the story "our" government and media is telling us is true. Show us your "credible evidence".
1 [deleted] 2013-02-01
[deleted]
1 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
Please don't belittle me I'm just asking questions, if you don't like it don't comment.
1 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
lets ignore WTC7 for now what ever. The facts are this, WTC1 and 2 were designed completely differently than any other buildings before them, comparing them being "on fire" to any other building is non-sence. What clearly happened was an AIR plane crashed into the side of the building destroying the center structure... the center structure that held the buildings upright. With the center destroyed the the buildings pancaked, the entire quarter of the building above the gaping hole fell onto the floors below, chain reaction.
^ this is how i see it as happening from viewing the evidence, you looking on the same evidence see a different conclusion. With that how can we say you are more right than I?
and the idea you have of "pancaked floors" is just silly, even when the do controlled demos the floors don't land in stacks at the bottom, they don't plant explosives on every floor to obliterate the material it breaks as it fall onto the pile.
the planes? You show me a picture of a plane crashing at 600 mph and having anything left!
1 zocen 2013-02-01
I'm sure as a kid you had the toy where you had to put different objects into their respective holes, like a cube into a square hole, a sphere into a circular whole, etc. Now imagine they replace a cube with a plane and the hole you are supposed to fit it in is a sandbox. I think this diagram is pretty easy to follow. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Actually, just read up here; it could answer some of your questions and bring light to some of the inconsistencies with the official report.
1 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
I stand by my conclusion that crashing 600 mph would destroy any evidence and leave a crater
1 zocen 2013-02-01
Wouldnt the hole be just as big if not bigger than the actual plane? Take a meteorite for example. It could be a relatively small chunk of rock, but when hitting the earth it creates a huge crater. I wouldnt expect the crater of a plane to be smaller than the plane itself.
1 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
the mass of the plane in comparison to its size is low, which is the opposite of a meteor.
1 zocen 2013-02-01
Did you even look at the links I posted?
1 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
yes, and this is still the conclusion I come to.
1 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
the hole would be related to the MASS of the object not the size. higher mass = bigger hole
huge mass and small object will make a big hole. small mass and large object will make a small hole.
2 [deleted] 2013-02-01
Sorry, but your understanding of physics is very poor.
1 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
and you studied physics where?
1 zocen 2013-02-01
Shouldnt you also take into account the acceleration, and judging by what you said earlier, 600 is a good number to work off of. Since its traveling at such a quick speed and has quite a bit of mass since its a plane and not a small pebble, it should create quite a large crater.
1 TheTruthWasOutThere 2013-02-01
I'd like to recommend that you stop replying to i8hippo2, and instead go through his post history and down-vote everything. This will make it more difficult for him to post his asinine insinuations masked in the form of questions.
1 zocen 2013-02-01
Heh, I won't go that far, but I figured he was just being an ignorant fool.
1 grandmacaesar 2013-02-01
No. Let's not ignore WTC7.
And the twins didn't "collapse". They exploded. You can clearly see large portions of the wall leaving massive trails as they turn to dust in mid-air. The idea that you have of "pancaked floors" is not just silly, but goes against the basic laws of physics and nature.
There are not two different realities. One of us is right, one of us is wrong. You are wrong.
1 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
Ok so they exploded? how so with what? what was used to "explode" the towers?
the basic laws of physics? do you have a degree? or do you just hear others saying this and accept their conclusion (I'm not being mean I just want to know how you came up with this)
And you can't be sure I'm wrong so stop telling me I am, the evidence for this is circumstantial and "up for interpretation" stop saying I'm wrong it doesn't make me wrong and it doesn't make you right.
1 grandmacaesar 2013-02-01
I can be quite sure you are wrong, because what you are proposing goes against the laws of nature. God did not change natural law to benefit "muslim terrorists" on 9/11. I don't need a "degree in physics" to see that on WTC7, all the rivets popped on floor one at the exact same time, then all the rivets popped on floor 2 at the exact same time, then all the rivets popped on floor 3 at the exact same time, then all the rivets popped on floor 4 at the exact same time, then all the rivets on floor 5 popped at the exact same time...all the way thru floor 47, and all in under 7 seconds. If you think fire caused the "collapse" of WTC7, then you don't have two brain cells to rub together, and you shouldn't be allowed to operate a spoon.
What caused the explosions of the twin towers may be "up for interpretation", but if you can look at the video I posted above, and you can't see large trails of dust trailing behind large multi-story pieces of wall---wall that was not on fire---then you are either physically or mentally blind. IN THE VIDEO, THERE ARE LARGE PIECES OF WALL BEING BLOWN OUTWARD, AND EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF THE WALL HAS LARGE TRAILS OF DUST BEHIND IT.
So we have free will...you're welcome to ignore all the evidence your eyes can see. You're welcome to ignore all the evidence your eyes can't see. You're welcome to ignore that Larry Silverstein got the lease on the twins just seven weeks before 9/11, and quickly got it insured for against terrorist attacks. You can ignore that he collected $4.5 billion on a $14 million down payment. You can ignore all the facts you want. But ignoring, by definition, makes you an ignorant person.
1 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
please stop attacking me personally, that's just disrespectful.
if a 2 story building collapsed dust shoots out as the floors topple its simple,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p7G4hpvUn4 if that one wall could make that huge cloud just imagine a 110 story building.
1 grandmacaesar 2013-02-01
I think we can be certain the towers were made of quite different materials, and much more structurally sound than an old rotting relocated house.
I did not attack you personally.
I said: If you think fire caused the "collapse" of WTC7, then you don't have two brain cells to rub together, and you shouldn't be allowed to operate a spoon.
You are entering comments on the internet. I do not think you are an idiot. I think anyone and everyone with two eyes and a smidgen of operable brain matter can easily discern that WTC7 had to have been brought down by controlled demolition; that there is no way in this universe, the one we live in, that a 47-story building will collapse into it's own footprint in under 7 seconds without the use of cutter charges. However, if you think fire caused the "collapse" of WTC7...I stand by my statement.
And I stated the dictionary definition of ignorant. And as I said, if you choose to ignore all the anomalies of that day in order to rationalize what "our" government and media told us (without them providing us with a shred of proof, mind you) you are quite welcome to. But you will still be wrong.
1 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
why is it you chose to disbelieve the experts and choose to believe the "theories" put forth by everyday people, people who see something and make their best observation then stick by it despite what true experts say?
lets start from the beginning, step by step would you be willing to do that?
1 grandmacaesar 2013-02-01
Because the government/media so-called "experts" have not shown me a shred of proof of what they are saying.
Let's go thru this again.
We are told a Boeing 757-200 hit the Pentagon.
FIND ME A PIC OR VIDEO OF A BOEING 757-200 AT THE PENTAGON.
We are told a Boeing 757-200 crashed at Shanksville.
FIND ME A PIC OR VIDEO OF A BOEING 757-200 AT SHANKSVILLE.
We are told the twin towers "collapsed" "pancake-style".
SHOW ME A PIC OR VIDEO OF "110 PANCAKED FLOORS" (SHOULD BE TWO PILES) OR ANYTHING REMOTELY RESEMBLING A PILE OF 110 FLOORS. OR EVEN A PILE OF 50 FLOORS. OR EVEN A PILE OF 10 FLOORS.
We are told WTC7 "collapsed" due to fire.
IF YOU CAN LOOK AT THE "COLLAPSE" OF WTC7, AND YOU STILL THINK IT WAS CAUSED BY FIRE, YOU ARE AN IDIOT.
We are TOLD these things happened, yet we are shown nothing to PROVE these things happened.
Why is it you choose to believe the government-appointed "experts", with absolutely no proof given to you, even though it goes against what any one can see with their own two eyes? (Is it because the tv calls them "experts", so you automatically feel they must be smarter than you? Do you just accept whatever nonsense "our" media tells you to believe, in order to avoid thinking for yourself?)
2 TheTruthWasOutThere 2013-02-01
Really, it would be best if you stopped replying to i8hippo2, and started going through his post history, down-voting everything.
1 grandmacaesar 2013-02-01
Wow, yeah, I see. I gave him the benefit of the doubt for too long. His last comment is a dead giveaway.
2 TheTruthWasOutThere 2013-02-01
My thought is that we band together and vote this account off of every subreddit it peruses.
0 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
First off, why do you need video proof? How can you be sure we even had a revolutionary war, or civil war, there's no videos?
Show me a picture of any building that was ever demoed that shows anything resembling pancaked floors
What evidence do you have that your sourced are correct? why is it if the internet calls them experts you believe it? when ever a huge event in history happens do you just think the news corporations are lieing to benefit the rich people? why does everything have such a motive?
ok ok lets stop and slow down. If you are interested that is, tell me, in your own words what exactly happened on 911, like a story. no need to put in proof or pictures just step by step what happened from start to finish.
0 TheTruthWasOutThere 2013-02-01
You're just being antagonistic.
Kill the ones who talk. The others will get the hint.
Yes, I do consider contrary evidence which is not supplied by the alleged perpatrators.
In the case of 9/11, it's shocking to me that you could have had an open mind and formed your wrong conclusion. As a seasoned scam artist and successful former criminal, I knew it was a fraud when the TV told me they found Mohammad Atta's passport in the WTC rubble on the afternoon of the attack. Talk about bullshit.
I'm also familiar with thermite and pyroclastic combustion products. It was years before I understood how they took down WTC. The use of thermite should be completely clear to everybody: for one thing, there were temperatures so extreme that cars in the area of the collapse were reduced to only metal. All the plastic, rubber, cloth, were vaporized. Not melted: vaporized.
I should also point out that the mere presence of thermite in WTC is not, in itself, that suspicious. The CIA and military intelligence keep thermite on hand in every facility which process sufficiently secret information. The purpose is to destroy the hardware and data in the event of an invasion or armed take-over.
The issue with the WTC thermite is that there is so much of it, it seems to have been placed in relevant locations, and the timing with which it burned.
Anyway... Why do you ask these question? Are you, perhaps, trying to pat yourself on the back for your skepticism?
3 Weltall82 2013-02-01
true story. the pictures of this are telling, and irrefutably demonstrate that a pyroclastic cloud was present. and fucking jet fuel, which was burning poorly (thick smoke) does not do that. but thermite definitely does.
0 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
pictures of said cars? have you ever scene what happens to a car set on fire? it becomes a burnt out shell. Saying it was "vaporized" means nothing if you set plastic on fire it will leave almost no evidence just the burnt out shell.
2 Weltall82 2013-02-01
they weren't set aflame, you fool. study the post-pyroclastic cloud photos and video of vehicles on the street. they are melted, and precisely resemble what other cars have looked like when hit by volcanic pyroclastic conditions.
0 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
pics? all i can think is that looks the same as a car set on fire and left to burn.
1 Weltall82 2013-02-01
who set over fourteen hundred cars on fire right after the pyroclastic cloud came through? falling debris did not light these cars on fire. you can clearly see that in the many photos you can easily look up.
also, how did this person get parking meters to lean over, as if they had been partially melted? rare pic.
to think that you are trying to argue away the pyroclastic cloud when there are countless photos and videos of it, as well as damage to steel containing objects following it, is unreal.
do some homework, seriously.
1 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
just one pic i found after 5 seconds of looking http://www.ourcar.co.uk/burnt_out_car.JPG the car was set on fire, notice no door handles that means they melted, they were vaporized like the pics you showed me, they melt....
0 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
were any people melted?
0 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
were all the meters leaning over or just a few? if so why not all of them? did the "cloud" skip a few?
could i have been people panicing in the dust cloud and running into them or cars hitting them, or could they have been like that before?
1 TheTruthWasOutThere 2013-02-01
Actually, I have seen what happens to a car set on fire. NOTHING like what happened to cars at WTC. A reasonable person would not even make the comparison.
0 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
well you never gave any evidence or pictures when you say the car melted the first thing that came to my mind was it was simply set on fire, Please don't call me unreasonable I working with what YOU give me.
1 TheTruthWasOutThere 2013-02-01
It is not my job to do you searching for you. Go verify what I say on your own, you are not paying me to find links for you.
0 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
well if you cant support your opinion good day to you.
1 TheTruthWasOutThere 2013-02-01
It's not that I can't support my opinion, it's that I am not teaching kindergarten classes. If you can't look stuff up on your own, but feel some entitlement to dismissive remarks, you may as well go play in the highway for all I care.
0 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
cop out.
0 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
just one pic i found after 5 seconds of looking http://www.ourcar.co.uk/burnt_out_car.JPG
the car was set on fire
1 TheTruthWasOutThere 2013-02-01
notice that it still has tires, unlike the WTC cars.
0 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
this is the picture set i was given by a different poster, notice how may of them still have tires http://www.librariansfor911truth.org/carfires.html
1 TheTruthWasOutThere 2013-02-01
notice how many of them don't. those pictures include several vehicles that were nowhere near WTC. who knows why those were set on fire?
0 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
yeah who know why, they could have had something fall on them, or due to the panic in the streets be set on fire or people after insurance claim.
Just because you don't know why they were burnt doesn't mean it supports your theory.
1 TheTruthWasOutThere 2013-02-01
The fact that they are nowhere near WTC is sufficient to indicate that their burning has nothing to do with the pyroclastic gas which arose from the thermite that brought the building down. THAT is the point, dipshit.
By stating "who knows why they burned" I am not pleading ignorance, I am stating the irrelevance. Learn to think.
DO NOT reply to me again until you want to talk about the CIT video in which the police officers absolutely reject the official story about the pentagon strike. Once you get past the police officers and into the Arlington Cemetary workers, you may as well skip ahead to the cab driver who got sucked into the cover-up, and essentially admits that. In an effort to catalog every eye-witness, the video gets a little repetitive until the climax at the end.
0 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
so what are you claiming? that the cloud didn't destroy them? so they were burnt by fire simple! like the rest of them.
we weren't even talking about the pentagon strike. Looks to me like i gave you a logical explanation and now you are jumping to a different subject.
1 TheTruthWasOutThere 2013-02-01
We were talking about what a liar you are to say that no experts disagree with the official story. I consider police officers expert observers, because they are.
0 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
do you actually want to have a conversation about the evidence or just piss off?
1 TheTruthWasOutThere 2013-02-01
I want you to acknowledge Pilots for 9/11 Truth are experts, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth are experts, the police officers in this video are experts, and all of them refute your opinion.
I can see you don't want to actually talk about the experts who know that 9/11 was a fraud. You want to lie and state they don't exist. Then, when asked about them, pretend you are finally too offended to continue.
0 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
Well as I may clarify I am a mechanical engineer with a minor in physics I don't care if you don't believe that but how is it that i could become an expert I've got the degree...
1 TheTruthWasOutThere 2013-02-01
OMFG you have... did you get that degree from an off-shore university? What the fuck kind of mechanical engineer with a minor in physics has this little clue?
Have you watched that video yet?
0 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
no here in Pennsylvania. the kind with a 3.0 GPA and 3.1 in the minor, the kind that looks at evidence and questiosn.
what video?
i wanna talk about the WYC's!
1 TheTruthWasOutThere 2013-02-01
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html
Watch until the police officer testimony. I know it gets dull, but hang in there. Feel free to skip the cemetery employees and then jump to the bit with the cab driver. Be certain you watch the part when he does not know he is being recorded.
I don't want to talk about anything other than your assertion that experts agree with the cover story. Multiple times, I have pointed out to you that there are fucking organizations of experts, pilots, architects, and engineers, who assert that the cover story must be false.
You refuse to address that, and instead use information given to you by others in an attempt to draw me in to some tangent. Increasingly, I think you are a well-trained diversionary operative. The tell-tale sign will be if you don't respond to the fact that actual experts disagree with you, or if you refuse to watch that video that I have posted for you, twice.
1 TheTruthWasOutThere 2013-02-01
You gave me some other source's photos of cars that were nowhere near WTC. That is no explanation, that is a diversionary tactic suitable for someone paid to wage a disinformation campaign.
0 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
so what caused those cars to burn up? nothing?
1 TheTruthWasOutThere 2013-02-01
Who the fuck cares? I never brought those cars up and I don't care
Why won't you address the fact that you lied about the experts and why won't you show yourself the statements made by police officer eye-witnesses? Every post in which you fail to address these points further seals the conclusion that you are here on a disinformation campaign in which you pretend to be "one who asks questions". Yeah, you ask a lot of disingenuous questions.
I don't know what kind of shitty education you paid for. At Caltech, all freshmen get to burn thermite, or at least watch it burn. How you could be a mechanical engineer and have to ask by what method thermite destroys concrete... your story isn't holding together.
0 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
Ill watch that tomorrow. I for one don't believe in eyewitness reports, as tey are based on "what they think they saw and happened"
1 TheTruthWasOutThere 2013-02-01
Including police officers? Way to pick and choose your sources, Mr. Open Minded.
0 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
were all human people make mistakes, intemperate things wrong
Its a normal thing.
Pretend its late at night and you look out your window hear a band and see something, anything If you believe in aliens it was aliens, if you believe in ghosts it was ghosts, if you believe the government is out to get you it was them. People fill in blanks with what they know.
1 [deleted] 2013-02-01
[deleted]
0 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
oh sorry i spelled a word wrong, that makes you CORRECT! good job you WON!
1 TheTruthWasOutThere 2013-02-01
I won a long time ago, dipshit.
You spelled so many words wrong, in so many of your posts, that I am beginning to think you are either taking mind-altering substances, or have a mental illness.
Anyway, why do you refuse to talk about the experts you claimed did not exist?
Will you least acknowledge that Pilots for 9/11 Truth is a group which exists, is composed of commercial pilots, and does not agree with you?
Or are you actually this dishonest, Mr. Cheney?
0 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
what did you win? your self satisfying bullshit reward?
1 TheTruthWasOutThere 2013-02-01
You don't have to wait until tomorrow to acknowledge that relevant experts disagree with you. Specifically: Pilots for 9/11 Truth say the official story is impossible, and so do Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
Can you bring yourself to acknowledge the obvious and public fact that there are multitudes of experts who dispute the official story, as opposed to the "none" that you asserted.
0 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
simple question, did air planes hit the WTC? If yes, why use a missile for the pentagon?
1 TheTruthWasOutThere 2013-02-01
obviously
You are asking about motives. Do you think I am a telepath?
For that matter, who said it was a missile and not explosives planted in the pentagon? Not me.
Have you ever heard of Pilots for 9/11 Truth before today? Are you aware that they assert the NIST black box data from the pentagon plane is aerodynamically impossible?
And of course you have not watched the CIT video, which shreds the official story with multiple credible witnesses and hidden video of a conspirator, talking about how he got sucked into the conspiracy.
Because you are dishonest and possibly on drugs if not actually an employee of Dick Cheney.
0 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
It just makes no sense, is all they hijack planes to crash into buildings then use a missile to hit the pentagon? How did the missile knock down the light posts?
1 TheTruthWasOutThere 2013-02-01
Watch the video I linked you for those answers.
What about Pilots for 9/11 Truth?
1 TheTruthWasOutThere 2013-02-01
Again: why do you refuse to acknowledge that there are multitudes of experts who disagree with the official story? I've asked you about ten times now, Mr. Cheney.
Tell me what you think of Pilots for 9/11 Truth.
0 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
you cannot answer my question? WOW thats cool
1 TheTruthWasOutThere 2013-02-01
What about Pilots for 9/11 Truth?
0 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
the jet fuel wasn't burning not long after the attacks, what was burning as you put it "poorly" was the tables desks, walls chairs, and fucking people in that building.
1 Weltall82 2013-02-01
that is the most ridiculous thing i've heard.
if chairs and furniture and bodies were on fire, how exactly would it produce a pyroclastic cloud clearly visible on the videos? are you aware of what a pyroclastic cloud is?
there were no fires on the streets, no burning desks on the street, or burning bodies on the streets. how would the heat of a visibly poorly burning fire in a collapsed building produce a pyroclastic event hot enough to melt cars for blocks surrounding?
you are a liar, and a poor one.
0 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
do you know what a pyroclastic cloud is or did some one just tell you that's what was happening and you believed it? (I'm not being mean i just wanna know how you came to that conclusion)
the dust was form from the ash from fires, the pulverized concrete as from the buildings collapsing and the asbestos the building was full of.
the cars were not melted, they were set on fire by the debris falling on them, how is it you can sit there and see the "cloud" melted cars and yet no person was melted by the even? no bones found in the street of a "melted" person due to the cloud?
Please I would ask you to not personally attack me I am not a "liar" I don't even understand how you came to that conclusion.
0 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
"I'm also familiar with thermite and pyroclastic combustion products." you are? how so? are you a specialist? or did you just read about with others said they do and could have done here.
Then tell me this, these conspiracies always have a tell they always seem to mess shit up so bad as to give people a reason to doubt, if you planned the 911 attacks do you think you could get them right? no trails? no evidence? or would you leave it all kinda out there so someone could find it.
1 TheTruthWasOutThere 2013-02-01
I've burned thermite twice -- small quantities (around 1kg), but that's all you'll need to experience pyroclastic smoke. That, or a volcano.
Anybody can purchase the ingredients for thermite. I would suggest that you place your order on June 10th and plead with the supply company to get you the ingredients you need in time for the patriotic display you have planned for the 4th of July. That worked well for me.
If you would like to see pyroclastic smoke from burning thermite on concrete, you could be like me: use thermite to demolish the part of the sidewalk you need to replace. Beats the shit out of using a jack-hammer, and the neighbors love it.
I got that idea from our college chem lab, when we accidentally burned a hole in the concrete sidewalk, attempting to simply burn a little thermite "someplace safe."
Fuck you, too.
The people who did this only need to fool the majority of people. They were over-confident, perhaps.
And if I were going to take buildings down in a controlled demolition, I would have no choice but to use demolition explosives, same as them.
0 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
interesting, youve worked with it cool! how did ti bring the building down? how did it pulverize the concrete?
please don't attack me stop saying "fuck you" if you don't want to talk don't attack me because i don't believe everything you do. Out of the 10 people who have replied 1 was nice about it, you make the reddit look ignorant like alex jones, so please don't disrespect.
1 TheTruthWasOutThere 2013-02-01
Fuck you. Your dismissive tone is exceedingly offensive. "you are? how so? ... or did you just read about with others...."
Shut the fuck up. Regarding your stupid questions, you are trying to sound like a "rational skeptic" but asking what are actually stupid questions, in a tone intended to dismiss the answers. You want to believe 9/11 was an attack using jet planes, fine, what do I care?
1 TheTruthWasOutThere 2013-02-01
This is already explained by Eric Berne around 1960. This is what he calls "being a Schlemiel criminal." You may or may not have time to learn that material, but if you don't, we really aren't going to be able to converse at the same level with regard to why they always fuck it up.
0 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
give me the info in a nutshell? people just suck at their jobs?
1 TheTruthWasOutThere 2013-02-01
The info does not fit in a nutshell. Get off your lazy ass and read a book.
1 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
Ok so they exploded? how so with what? what was used to "explode" the towers?
the basic laws of physics? do you have a degree? or do you just hear others saying this and accept their conclusion (I'm not being mean I just want to know how you came up with this)
And you can't be sure I'm wrong so stop telling me I am, the evidence for this is circumstantial and "up for interpretation" stop saying I'm wrong it doesn't make me wrong and it doesn't make you right.
1 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
please stop attacking me personally, that's just disrespectful.
if a 2 story building collapsed dust shoots out as the floors topple its simple,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p7G4hpvUn4 if that one wall could make that huge cloud just imagine a 110 story building.
1 [deleted] 2013-02-01
haha sure
0 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
how so? All i was doing was asking questions, amazingly I did get one person the actually like to discuss this and not just ignore me because I have a different point of view. At least I can talk to them :-)
P.S. You are silly
1 TheTruthWasOutThere 2013-02-01
OMFG you have... did you get that degree from an off-shore university? What the fuck kind of mechanical engineer with a minor in physics has this little clue?
Have you watched that video yet?
1 TheTruthWasOutThere 2013-02-01
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html
Watch until the police officer testimony. I know it gets dull, but hang in there. Feel free to skip the cemetery employees and then jump to the bit with the cab driver. Be certain you watch the part when he does not know he is being recorded.
I don't want to talk about anything other than your assertion that experts agree with the cover story. Multiple times, I have pointed out to you that there are fucking organizations of experts, pilots, architects, and engineers, who assert that the cover story must be false.
You refuse to address that, and instead use information given to you by others in an attempt to draw me in to some tangent. Increasingly, I think you are a well-trained diversionary operative. The tell-tale sign will be if you don't respond to the fact that actual experts disagree with you, or if you refuse to watch that video that I have posted for you, twice.
0 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
so what caused those cars to burn up? nothing?
1 Hippo_Stalker 2013-02-01
That's an interesting speculation. It doesn't seem to explain the failure of momentum to be conserved.
That point doesn't make sense in light of the penetration of the "aircraft" into the C ring. If you think the fuel of the plane could not penetrate the pentagon walls, how do you think it is possible for the aircraft to have penetrated through five of these reinforced concrete walls? Some people forget that the fuselage is made of very thin aluminum. Only the spars and keel are particularly solid, and those certainly don't explain the curiously circular hole in the C-ring wall.
At this point I think I've established that you can't look at evidence and interpret it without bias. Momentum is momentum. The fuel was either moving at 500mph and miraculously came to a sudden stop, or it was never moving to begin with.
You know what would make more sense? That the Pentagon had a high-tech kerosene shield made of invisible energy.
1 i8hippo2 2013-02-01
But still about the drills, maybe you not in particular but most people would see that it happened recently and deduce it as evidence for a coverup/conspiracy.
Besides why plan the drills on the same day, to confuse? I'm sure the people planning this "false flag" didn't think it would be fishy when there was an investigation.