View Single Post
Old 8th October 2013, 11:13 PM   #304
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
The Pesident of the United States says he watched it on TV at the school..... ...
The Pesident? You meant the PEZidents?
http://www.candywarehouse.com/produc...d=scsho3478700


You picked silly woo "hard fact" 19 -
Quote:
19) Bush said he watched the first plane crash into the North tower on TV before entering the classroom.
What does it mean?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDv3_KfdBs4

Oops, anyone with a TV on at 8:52 saw ("where") flight 11 hit on 911.
The president left out "where" when the president said he saw the first impact.

Raise the flag of woo; you can't tie this "hard fact" to support the "inside job" nonsense. Can you?
Bush makes a speaking error, and 911 truth makes up nonsense.

Woo about the President's silver tongue... now we have woo on Flight 93, the Passengers who figure out 911 in minutes, and here you are, 12 years and you can't figure it out given the answers.

Now you fall for "hard fact" 16.
Quote:
16) “Flight 93″ debris was spread out over many miles. Cheney admits to giving the order to shootdown 93. “shot down the plane over Pennsylvania” Rumsfeld, “nothing that you could distinguish that a plane had crashed there” ‘Chris Konicki. “Not a drop of blood” Coroner Wallace Miller. “there was no plane.” Mayor Ernie Stull.
The "hard fact" expert makes no real claim. No one shot down the 93. The FDR shows the terrorists flew 93 into the ground. Will quote-mining in the "hard fact" 16 inspire more silly claims?

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Educate me D, tell me why these officials made these observations regarding Shanksville. ...
Because they are not trained aircraft accident investigators. You love to quote mine and can't say what the failed quote-mining efforts mean.

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
"This crash was different. There was no wreckage, no bodies, and no noise."
- Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller ...
Oops, don't look, here is wreckage.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...debris18sm.jpg
I see over 1,000 aircraft parts. Guess my USAF training as an accident investigator make visible, the stuff you say is invisible.

And this is a best effort, quote-mining, cherry-picking out in the old Balsamo orchard of woo, lies, and delusional fantasies.

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
"I was looking for anything that said tail, wing, plane, metal. There was nothing."
- Photographer Scott Spangler ...
Your quote-mine makes him look crazy, he was the parts to talk to him? Talking parts?
Another quote mine. Does this support your story? No, you failed to look a RADAR if you think there was no plane. What is your story as you quote mine your way to bigger woo.
Oops, parts, thousands more. Who too this photo, Scott?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...3debris8sm.jpg

Are you saying the photographer is blind? All those parts, and they are all from Flight 93, proved by RADAR, and FDR; not to mention all passengers were identified by DNA, even the 4 terrorists, which no one has picked up.

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
"I was amazed because it did not, in any way, shape, or form, look like a plane crash."
- Patrick Madigan, commander of the Somerset barracks
of the Pennsylvania State Police ...
Really, why are all the part of the plane there? Look, here is an engine.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...3debris11d.jpg
Plus the crash of a plane out of gas, which looks like no aircraft too.
What does this quote-mined statement mean. Because Patrick knows it was Flight 93 - do you? It is funny you quote mine people who know it was Flight 93. What is your point?

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
I actually watched the Coroner make this statement on a news feed at the site on the day. I have not forgotten the plethora of first hand testimony and I do not discount it because a decade has passed. ...
You do discount most of it. All you do is quote mine first hand testimony. I have the FDR data from the impact crater, and RADAR data, which proves it was 93. You have quote-mined statements which mean? Nothing.

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
... I can only say that the London Telegraph is a tabloid of long standing and there was no retraction or rebuff. ...
Quote:
Sightseers at the towers over the past few years would have seen a reassuring information panel at the top floor visitors' centre, explaining how they should not worry about plane crashes as the building was made to withstand them.
An aircraft accident, not a terrorists attack.
Pay attention, the design of the WTC would stop planes slower than 200 mph, Robertson designed it for a 707 low on fuel lost in the fog going 180 mph. This equal 187 pounds of TNT.
Flight 11 hit at 490 mph, with an impact equal to 1300 pounds of TNT, 7 times more than design.
Flight 175 hit at 590 mph, an impact equal to 2093 pounds of TNT, 11 times more than design.

Why can't you do the physics? These impacts were so much more than design, they destroyed the fire systems, dislodged fire insulation, and destroy most of the escape routes. The design impact speed of 182 would not do much damage - the terrorists speeding did major damage.

Physics? 911 truth doesn't use it.

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
BN, I did read your entire post, but I will only ask one question...what is woo, a few have used it, is it just this forum that employs it (I expect it means spin) or is it used on other forums? ...
You use woo, you think quote mined statements are evidence for your inside job you can't explain. That is a lot of woo. You spread woo.

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
... the towers were impact resistant. Some here commented that it was not a design feature, that the ability to resist came as a consequence of the design....whats the difference...WTC acknowlege that they were....someone asked me to qualify it. ...
180 mph impact was the design point. Aircraft accident was the design point. Terrorist exceeded the impact design point by 7 and 11 times. You have no point.

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
... witness testimony ... is the most valid testimony in our legal system. The only way to rebuke witness testimony is to show that there is an agenda to the statements other than just an account of experienced events. ...
LOL, hit is woo, big time woo. It is ironic, you only quote-mine witness testimony, you don't present much more. You don't know you are quote-mining, or do you?

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Why would all the testimony on the day by uninterested parties there by chance be highly prone to subjectivity, hyperbole, and metaphor? ...
You said people did not see an aircraft in PA. Yet, here we have thousands of aircraft parts all over the ground, and buried in a crater due to impact.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris18sm.jpg
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris8sm.jpg
There are more photos of parts.
Did they lie? Or are do they lack the knowledge to know those are aircraft parts?

What does an aircraft impact look like at 487.5 knots?
What does an aircraft impact look like at 561 mph?
Have you ever been at 560 mph?
What does an aircraft impact look like when the plane is in 142 degrees of roll (almost upside down), and -41.1 degrees of pitch? Number which are from the FDR found in the crater Flight 93 made because the terrorist pilot flew the plane into the ground instead of fighting the Passengers.

How do you explain all the DNA?

You don't know what an aircraft looks like at 561 mph, -41 degree pitch, and 142 degrees of roll. But you can quote-mine.

Impact energy greater than 1,400 pounds of TNT. Enough energy to destroy the entire aircraft, into parts, small parts.

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
You can count the number of progressive collapses on your fingers Craig....then we get three in the one place within 8 hours.....Lots of firsts with 911.
What does it mean? It means you can't do the physics and engineering to realize impacts and fire did it? Or WTC 7 burned all day? Fire destroys the strength of steel, quickly when not protected. Why can't 911 truth grasp science?
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top