ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 10th October 2013, 03:15 PM   #321
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,199
Originally Posted by indio007 View Post
Well well well quite the hornet's nest. You fell for the bait. I was waiting for you all to fall all over each other. There is a lot more data than what I posted.

First of all I'm at quite the disadvantage because I can't post links or images.

Secondly I said Jet A does not explode at sea level.

Thirdly Are you all afraid to post Handshuh's photo? It's an image of the impact site from directly below it. There is a 75 ft column of flame shooting into the direction the plane came from. This is an explosion , not a flashover over the fuel.

Fourth, 75 milijoule ignition is a red herring. A 20 joule spark immersed in Jet A will not ignite it. Go read Spark Ignition Energy Measurements in Jet A Graduate Aeronautical Laboratories
California Institute of Technology.
That stopped testing at 20 joules out of futility of trying to get Jet A to ignite via an immersed spark.

Stop making an ass of yourselves with logical falacies. The data is extensive.
1. There WAS an explosion at the moment of plane impact.
2. The explosion could not have been caused by the plane fuel

That's the only fact necessary, you don't need 2, 4 , 6 or 80044 facts to prove the official conspiracy theory is flawed.

I suggest you read

FIRE AND EXPLOSION MANUAL
FOR
AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT INVESTIGATORS
Joseph M. Kuchta

JET A EXPLOSION EXPERIMENT:
LABORATORY TESTING
NTSB
Caltech

Summary and Conclusions of Explosion Research Team
M. Birky (NTSB), J. Kolly (NTSB), J. E. Shepherd (CIT), P. A. Thibault (CDL), M. R. Baer (SNL),
K. van Wingerden (CMR), J. E. Woodrow (UNR), J. C. Sagebiel (DRI)
Introduction
A team of researchers contributed to the TWA 800 accident investigation by carrying out a research
program on issues connected with the explosion of Jet A (aviation kerosene) vapors.



Even if there was an explosion, do you think the WTC blew apart from a 60 PSI shockwave?

Jet A Explosions and TWA Flight 800 Investigation
Aviation Kerosene (Jet A) Research at Caltech



Jet A Explosion Experiments:
Laboratory Testing
Graduate Aeronautical Laboratories
California Institute of Technology


The compare all this to the Bagram crash of a fully fueled plane with JP8.
The WTC smoke mushroom cloud reaches over 1/2 mile in diameter in less than 30 seconds and eventually is over a mile wide.

The dynamics of the WTC crash explosion do not match experiment OR real world date.

No amount of word smithing and logical fallacies are going to fix this.
You should study the concept of atomized fuel and vapors. The study you're quoting is about fuel still in tanks and why vapor buildup in those tanks is dangerous.

The atomized fuel ignited, it didn't "explode". The fuel was also traveling at 500 mph when it ignited. Your research material isn't applicable the the WTC crashes. Great job on representing how truthers retarded ideas are based on misapplied and quote mined sources.
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus

Last edited by Justin39640; 10th October 2013 at 03:17 PM.
Justin39640 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
Old 10th October 2013, 03:16 PM   #322
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,199
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
So what are you claiming> all the fule just sloshed out of the aircraft and washed around the place?
Or that the tanks didn't rupture at all, take your pick!
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 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
Old 10th October 2013, 04:24 PM   #323
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by indio007 View Post
Well well well quite the hornet's nest. You fell for the bait. I was waiting for you all to fall all over each other. There is a lot more data than what I posted.

First of all I'm at quite the disadvantage because I can't post links or images.

Secondly I said Jet A does not explode at sea level.

Thirdly Are you all afraid to post Handshuh's photo? It's an image of the impact site from directly below it. There is a 75 ft column of flame shooting into the direction the plane came from. This is an explosion , not a flashover over the fuel.

Fourth, 75 milijoule ignition is a red herring. A 20 joule spark immersed in Jet A will not ignite it. Go read Spark Ignition Energy Measurements in Jet A Graduate Aeronautical Laboratories
California Institute of Technology.
see figure 21

They stopped testing at 20 joules out of futility of trying to get Jet A to ignite via an immersed spark.

Stop making an ass of yourselves with logical falacies. The data is extensive.
1. There WAS an explosion at the moment of plane impact.
2. The explosion could not have been caused by the plane fuel

That's the only fact necessary, you don't need 2, 4 , 6 or 80044 facts to prove the official conspiracy theory is flawed.

I suggest you read

FIRE AND EXPLOSION MANUAL
FOR
AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT INVESTIGATORS
Joseph M. Kuchta

JET A EXPLOSION EXPERIMENT:
LABORATORY TESTING
NTSB
Caltech

Summary and Conclusions of Explosion Research Team
M. Birky (NTSB), J. Kolly (NTSB), J. E. Shepherd (CIT), P. A. Thibault (CDL), M. R. Baer (SNL),
K. van Wingerden (CMR), J. E. Woodrow (UNR), J. C. Sagebiel (DRI)
Introduction
A team of researchers contributed to the TWA 800 accident investigation by carrying out a research
program on issues connected with the explosion of Jet A (aviation kerosene) vapors.



Even if there was an explosion, do you think the WTC blew apart from a 60 PSI shockwave?

Jet A Explosions and TWA Flight 800 Investigation
Aviation Kerosene (Jet A) Research at Caltech



Jet A Explosion Experiments:
Laboratory Testing
Graduate Aeronautical Laboratories
California Institute of Technology


The compare all this to the Bagram crash of a fully fueled plane with JP8.
The WTC smoke mushroom cloud reaches over 1/2 mile in diameter in less than 30 seconds and eventually is over a mile wide.

The dynamics of the WTC crash explosion do not match experiment OR real world data.

No amount of word smithing and logical fallacies are going to fix this.


PS enough with the omission of time in energy comparisons (and every other comparison) such as the "energy of XXX pounds of TNT". It means nothing. The rate at which the energy is released os the substantial comparison.
Well now, that fully explains why aircraft that crash, whether into buildings, or open fields, or creek valleys , never catch fire. www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAlx_PwLMWA
Even a quick Google search for air crash will get you multiple videos and images of burning aircraft and exploding aircraft.

In fact the most common reason for no fire is aircraft that have run out of fuel. No turning engines, not hot exhaust, no massive spills of fuel.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 10th October 2013 at 04:29 PM.
jaydeehess 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
Old 10th October 2013, 04:30 PM   #324
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,511
Originally Posted by indio007 View Post
Well well well quite the hornet's nest. You fell for the bait. I was waiting for you all to fall all over each other. There is a lot more data than what I posted.

First of all I'm at quite the disadvantage because I can't post links or images.

Secondly I said Jet A does not explode at sea level.

Thirdly Are you all afraid to post Handshuh's photo? It's an image of the impact site from directly below it. There is a 75 ft column of flame shooting into the direction the plane came from. This is an explosion , not a flashover over the fuel.

Fourth, 75 milijoule ignition is a red herring. A 20 joule spark immersed in Jet A will not ignite it. Go read Spark Ignition Energy Measurements in Jet A Graduate Aeronautical Laboratories
California Institute of Technology.
see figure 21

They stopped testing at 20 joules out of futility of trying to get Jet A to ignite via an immersed spark.

Stop making an ass of yourselves with logical falacies. The data is extensive.
1. There WAS an explosion at the moment of plane impact.
2. The explosion could not have been caused by the plane fuel

That's the only fact necessary, you don't need 2, 4 , 6 or 80044 facts to prove the official conspiracy theory is flawed.

I suggest you read

FIRE AND EXPLOSION MANUAL
FOR
AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT INVESTIGATORS
Joseph M. Kuchta

JET A EXPLOSION EXPERIMENT:
LABORATORY TESTING
NTSB
Caltech

Summary and Conclusions of Explosion Research Team
M. Birky (NTSB), J. Kolly (NTSB), J. E. Shepherd (CIT), P. A. Thibault (CDL), M. R. Baer (SNL),
K. van Wingerden (CMR), J. E. Woodrow (UNR), J. C. Sagebiel (DRI)
Introduction
A team of researchers contributed to the TWA 800 accident investigation by carrying out a research
program on issues connected with the explosion of Jet A (aviation kerosene) vapors.



Even if there was an explosion, do you think the WTC blew apart from a 60 PSI shockwave?

Jet A Explosions and TWA Flight 800 Investigation
Aviation Kerosene (Jet A) Research at Caltech



Jet A Explosion Experiments:
Laboratory Testing
Graduate Aeronautical Laboratories
California Institute of Technology


The compare all this to the Bagram crash of a fully fueled plane with JP8.
The WTC smoke mushroom cloud reaches over 1/2 mile in diameter in less than 30 seconds and eventually is over a mile wide.

The dynamics of the WTC crash explosion do not match experiment OR real world data.

No amount of word smithing and logical fallacies are going to fix this.


PS enough with the omission of time in energy comparisons (and every other comparison) such as the "energy of XXX pounds of TNT". It means nothing. The rate at which the energy is released os the substantial comparison.
What does any of this have to do with Jet A being sprayed over a wide area at over 500mph while simultaneously being exposed to an ignition source (above sea level I might add, not that it matters)?

And what are you trying to claim happened anyway?

Are you a no-planer?

Are you saying we all imagined the flames witnessed as a result of the jet impacts?

http://www.fireengineering.com/artic.../jet-fuel.html
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F 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
Old 10th October 2013, 04:33 PM   #325
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,047
Originally Posted by indio007 View Post
There is a 75 ft column of flame shooting into the direction the plane came from. This is an explosion , not a flashover over the fuel.
How did you calculate the velocity of the spray of fuel droplets in order to work out the rate at which the flame propagated? Did you just assume it was a static suspension of fuel droplets? What if instead it was a high speed spray of already burning fuel?

Quote:
A 20 joule spark immersed in Jet A will not ignite it.
A spark immersed in a tank of liquid fuel? Why do you think that test is relevant here?
Jack by the hedge 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
Old 10th October 2013, 04:33 PM   #326
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
http://www2.galcit.caltech.edu/EDL/p...nceptions.html
http://www.fireengineering.com/artic.../jet-fuel.html

Quote:
. Any airplane with fuel in it is a flying bomb.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 10th October 2013 at 04:42 PM.
jaydeehess 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
Old 10th October 2013, 06:59 PM   #327
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by Justin39640 View Post
You should study the concept of atomized fuel and vapors. The study you're quoting is about fuel still in tanks and why vapor buildup in those tanks is dangerous.

The atomized fuel ignited, it didn't "explode". The fuel was also traveling at 500 mph when it ignited. Your research material isn't applicable the the WTC crashes. Great job on representing how truthers retarded ideas are based on misapplied and quote mined sources.
Yeah...corn is not an explosive either......but there have been several silos blown apart by corn dust as well.
Animal 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
Old 10th October 2013, 07:08 PM   #328
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,199
Originally Posted by Animal View Post
Yeah...corn is not an explosive either......but there have been several silos blown apart by corn dust as well.
Almost anything atomized can be a hazard. When i was 16 I worked at a pharmaceutical plant by my home. They had little to no dust control. One overnight shift there was a spark and it leveled the building. Two dead.

Oh, and at about 60 feet above sea level.
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 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
Old 10th October 2013, 07:23 PM   #329
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Flour mill at Keewatin, Ontario, Canada was destroyed by fire. A brick building, the flour dust was sparked by construction in the mill. The initial conflagration blew out the windows, basically the dust exploded.
jaydeehess 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
Old 10th October 2013, 07:57 PM   #330
TjW
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,097
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
How did you calculate the velocity of the spray of fuel droplets in order to work out the rate at which the flame propagated? Did you just assume it was a static suspension of fuel droplets? What if instead it was a high speed spray of already burning fuel?



A spark immersed in a tank of liquid fuel? Why do you think that test is relevant here?
Well, since the jet engines that burn the jet fuel were running pretty much full throttle, burning jet fuel at the time of impact, I can think of at least one plausible ignition source. Or two, actually.
TjW 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
Old 10th October 2013, 08:02 PM   #331
waypastvne
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 399
Originally Posted by indio007 View Post
Even if there was an explosion, do you think the WTC blew apart from a 60 PSI shockwave?

This is a 5 psi shockwave.


YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xv_G6...FF554B6FC2FD01


Quote:
Explosive Blast

Much of the damage inflicted by a nuclear explosion is the result of its shock wave. There are two components to a blast’s shock wave. First, there’s the wall of pressure that expands outward from the explosion. It is this pressure, measured in psi (pounds per square inch), that blows away the walls from buildings. A typical two-story house subjected to 5 psi would feel the force of 180 tons on the side facing the blast. (Download the Quicktime movie entitled house to see an example of a building subjected to this type of pressure.) Additionally, the blast creates a 160 mile-an-hour wind. And that’s only at 5 psi. The wind speed following a 20 psi blast would be 500 mph!
http://www.nationalterroralert.com/nuclear/

Last edited by waypastvne; 10th October 2013 at 08:12 PM.
waypastvne 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
Old 10th October 2013, 08:03 PM   #332
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,015
Originally Posted by indio007 View Post
...
PS enough with the omission of time in energy comparisons (and every other comparison) such as the "energy of XXX pounds of TNT". It means nothing. ...
It means you can't do science, math, and physics.
Originally Posted by indio007 View Post
...
The rate at which the energy is released os the substantial comparison.
The aircraft impacts were not explosions, they were kinetic energy impacts. Not explosives. The jet fuel did the fireballs, there were no explosives - you can tell by the rate the energy was released. There were no sounds of explosives - I have experienced explosives being used to try and kill me, they make big noises and have shock-waves - these big noises, and shock-waves were not heard on 911.

What is your fantasy on 911? You have failed to make it clear. You don't need to link to web sites to explain your failed fantasy.

http://www2.galcit.caltech.edu/EDL/p...nceptions.html

Anyway, the source you posted are based on science, and they refute your fuzzy claim, the poorly defined 25th "hard fact". The paper you posted debunk your fantasy.


Irony, or what? You are talking about jet fuel not exploding, or something; yet you reference papers like this...
Quote:
FIRE AND EXPLOSION MANUAL FOR AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT INVESTIGATORS Joseph M. Kuchta
Quote:
They stopped testing at 20 joules out of futility of trying to get Jet A to ignite via an immersed spark.
Immersed? lol, the jet fuel dispersed by the impact of 175 with the WTC was ignited by hot jet engine parts. Parts hotter than the auto-ignition temperature of jet fuel. Immersed? lol, I don't know of any jet fuel tanks which exploded that were full of fuel, or from immersed sparks or overheating fuel pumps. ??? The explosions of fuel tanks is usually empty tanks (filled with fuel fumes) where pumps cooled by being immersed in fuel, now exposed overheat due to accumulated wear, and cause an explosion of jet fuel vapors; or wires introduce a tiny spark, into the empty tank, and explode if the temp and press are right.

You don't have a fact to refute the evil NWO "official story". Now what?

Now we know why an empty tank is a hazard, it only take 10 millijoules to set it off - and an immersed spark, in a tank fuel of jet fuel will not light. Yes, we can put out matches in jet fuel, but not jet fuel vapor at the right concentration, pressure, and temperature. Examples of fuel not lighting, when we flood our gas engine, etc, etc.

Some of the big weapons are fuel air mixtures, there is a lot of energy in jet fuel. Jet fuel has 10 times the energy of TNT, you don't like science, or comparing things to pounds of TNT - a means to understand stuff, since Joules don't mean much to simple people like me.
When will you tell CBS, etc, you have broken 911 wide open? Anytime soon?


When the USAF had fuel pumps causing explosions in empty tanks, we had to keep 3,000 pounds of jet fuel in the tanks to prevent the pump from being exposed, and to act as a heat-sink.

Last edited by beachnut; 10th October 2013 at 09:43 PM.
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
Old 10th October 2013, 08:07 PM   #333
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,199
Originally Posted by TjW View Post
Well, since the jet engines that burn the jet fuel were running pretty much full throttle, burning jet fuel at the time of impact, I can think of at least one plausible ignition source. Or two, actually.
Don't forget the APU! Or metal grinding and sparking. Electrical, etc, etc, etc.
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 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
Old 10th October 2013, 08:11 PM   #334
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,487
Originally Posted by indio007 View Post
Well well well quite the hornet's nest. You fell for the bait. I was waiting for you all to fall all over each other. There is a lot more data than what I posted.

First of all I'm at quite the disadvantage because I can't post links or images.

Secondly I said Jet A does not explode at sea level.

Thirdly Are you all afraid to post Handshuh's photo? It's an image of the impact site from directly below it. There is a 75 ft column of flame shooting into the direction the plane came from. This is an explosion , not a flashover over the fuel.

Fourth, 75 milijoule ignition is a red herring. A 20 joule spark immersed in Jet A will not ignite it. Go read Spark Ignition Energy Measurements in Jet A Graduate Aeronautical Laboratories
California Institute of Technology.
see figure 21
This B-52 crashed at stall speed. Looks and sounds like an explosion to me.

As a retired chemist, I'm interested in why jet fuel can't explode at sea level. It seems to me that low altitude=denser air=more oxygen. Obviously, you are expert in this field and expound on it a little more.

Wait. You may be right. Look at all that black smoke! Oxygen-starved fire!

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Redwood 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
Old 10th October 2013, 08:41 PM   #335
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
This B-52 crashed at stall speed. Looks and sounds like an explosion to me.

As a retired chemist, I'm interested in why jet fuel can't explode at sea level. It seems to me that low altitude=denser air=more oxygen. Obviously, you are expert in this field and expound on it a little more.

Wait. You may be right. Look at all that black smoke! Oxygen-starved fire!

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Just a guess but I think he may believe that at higher elevations there would be more fuel vapour. Or perhaps he thinks that since boiling point lowers with altitude that so does ignition point.
jaydeehess 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
Old 10th October 2013, 08:51 PM   #336
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
This is a 747 crashing at Baghram. Jet-A fuel.
Note that this doomed aircraft had very little horizontal velocity when it hit the earth
jaydeehess 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
Old 10th October 2013, 09:28 PM   #337
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
God that's a horrible death.
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence."
Robrob 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
Old 10th October 2013, 11:59 PM   #338
sonofgloin
Thinker
 
sonofgloin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
Originally Posted by yodaluver28 View Post
I don't think he really misrepresented or dreamed up anything. His mind conflated two related images and filed them into the proper timeline in his mind even though he didn't actually see those images chronologically as they happened. A lot of people have done it.
YL, George was the President, he sent the troops to war over 911 and you reckon he had a brain freeze. Ask anyone of age where they were when they heard that Elvis had sadly died....and they can tell you, but George can't get his 911 story straight. Give me a break.
Quote:
The debris field was unusual
Yes it is of itself unusual as to how many "firsts" linger around 911.
Quote:
Nonsense, eyewitness testimony is by far the least reliable and valid type of evidence imaginable. The human memory is malleable and ever changing.
I agree YL, over time memory like rivers change courses. But all the video I supplied had on the spot, covered with rubble covered witnesses. The real time news reports had an ongoing theme of explosions. Time did not corrupt their testimony; they related what happened minutes ago. If you donít recall that take more fish oil.
Quote:
Yeah, because that "one place" had been attacked by terrorists in fully-loaded jetliners that deliberately crashed into two ginormous buildings. The third building was destroyed by debris and fire caused by the collapse of the two buildings that got rammed into.
WTC 7 was behind 5 and 6 so the debris strike was minimal in comparison. While we are talking minimal, the "collapse" of Building 7 was remarkably tidy. Even though it was sandwiched between the Verizon building and Post Office building, it barely damaged either of them. Unusual you said before about the plane crash, unusual again at the WTC.
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
I thought I had seen the first plane live. As for the rest of your post, presenting twoofers with facts and logic is a waste of time.
Daffyd you would swear to anything as long as it denigrated your interlocutor...what a surprise comment.
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Already asked, but true to the twoofer rule book, no answer.
Dafydd, I am talking explosions, I am talking demolished within its own footprint, I am talking about the unprecedented collapse of high rises by fire or plane strike....and you can't establish my scenario?
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Wrong! For instance a witnesses statement identifying a person as the perpetrator is trumped by DNA. It is trumped by documentary evidence, saysecurity video tthat shows he was somewhere else. In fact any documentary or physical evidence contrary to the witness trumps the witness. So you know as much about law as you do the Secret Service
Yes you certainly have a point Jay, especially the video evidence. Why did a load of people and fire-fighters say on video at the scene in real time say that there are explosions happening?

About your secret service evaluation sport. The facts were that there were an unknown number of hijacked aircraft wandering across the sky and the President was at a public location. But the secret service did not even remove George to the safety of the armoured Presidential Limousine. Thatís exactly what they do in the case of a real surprise attack. They don't do anything else if the limousine is the only explosive secure area.....immediately, without hesitation.
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
with thousands of gallons of acellerant dumped at high speed throughout these floors and ignited, within seconds several adjacent floors were all involved in large area office fires.
On that scale, that was a 'first' and it happened twice.
Yes and WTC 7 collapsed in sympathy, without the use of an air liner.
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
This is after all a person who seriously real estate developers can order the local fire department to blow up buildings in order to save lives
Mark the closest I have come to dazed and confused is via Led Zeppelin.
My fellow posters continually threaten not to give me an answer because whatever it is they are saying it is sacrosanct. You have failed to expand on my deferrals to Frank Lowy when I mention Larry's business. Larry is not a just a realtor from Brooklyn....unconnected to the apparatus of power, as I said look up Frank Lowy....both of them fit perfectly with their list of tenants at the time.
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
The most broadly analogous situation would be to a Kamikaze attack during WW2 Ė they didnít find much aircraft wreckage after those either. I mean, were you seriously expecting they would find this:?
Well sport given the plane weighed about 180,000 pound I expected more than a small truck load, the odd tyre, the odd scrap of metal
Originally Posted by BasqueArch View Post
So, is it your claim that it is impossible for something that has never happened before in history to happen for the first time?
Silly comment BA.....but three first at one time.....maybe..
Originally Posted by Animal View Post
Also, the impact site was soft earth compared to most other impact sites. That combined with you other points made a quite unusual crash scene.
Animal the whole area was reclaimed coal mines, the fill was loose waste and soil, small particles very soft. One of my queries with the impact is that in soft fill with equilateral resistance why did one flight recorder end up a load deeper than the other given they sit side by side in the plane?
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
I'm quite aware that politicians lie with statistics, but I'm not impressed by a counsel of despair which says all evidence is therefore equal, and I doubt you'll find any other takers here either.
God Jack, light up the torches and rouse the villagers, Jack is rallying the other non "takers" to action....I'm around here too Jack me lad, or am I not invited to the mob uprising. Stick your head out the window and yell "I'm as mad as hell and I am not going to take anyone disagreeing with me any more...then have an aspirin.
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
"This crash was different". Well, different to what?
No Jack he does go on to explain:
"No bodies, no wreckage, no noise."
Originally Posted by twinstead View Post
I would have preferred a comment rationalizing your decision to not accept the preponderance of evidence and instead take the out-of-context quotes from a couple people to prove your point.
No way TS, Daffyd has only contributed sneers thus far, a running Goebbels style commentary, and good luck to him, it is after all part of the whole.
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
Or do you think that ALL buildings, regardless of the structural design, will react the same way when the same circumstances are applied to each of them?
They used to before 911 tiger.
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Just out of morbid curiosity. If you believe flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville, what happened to it?
Nothing at the Pentagon crash, and that one was horizontal...an odd wheel here an odd small metal piece there...but enough documentation survived to name names...sure thing DGM.

Iíll be back.

Last edited by sonofgloin; 11th October 2013 at 12:01 AM.
sonofgloin 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
Old 11th October 2013, 01:01 AM   #339
Huttosaurus
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Hutt Vegas, NZ
Posts: 112
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Well sport given the plane weighed about 180,000 pound I expected more than a small truck load, the odd tyre, the odd scrap of metal
To pick on just one point in your wall of gish. It's a pity that your expectations are unrealistic and your observations inaccurate then isn't it?

BTW I have someone experienced at cleaning up after air-crashes big and small in my family. He's been there and done it, and isn't in any way surprised at the aftermath of the 93 impact. It's truther "expectations" that are the problem here.
Huttosaurus 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
Old 11th October 2013, 02:14 AM   #340
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 17,178
Sonofgloin stop pussyfooting

Do you think an aircraft crashed at Shanksville?
Do you think an aircraft hit the Pentagon?

Are you going to turn out to be another 'No Planer'?
Captain_Swoop is online now   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
Old 11th October 2013, 02:15 AM   #341
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,047
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
God Jack, light up the torches and rouse the villagers, Jack is rallying the other non "takers" to action....I'm around here too Jack me lad, or am I not invited to the mob uprising. Stick your head out the window and yell "I'm as mad as hell and I am not going to take anyone disagreeing with me any more...then have an aspirin.
Paranoid much?

In your fantasy world the villagers may be storming your gates with pitchforks and torches. In reality a few people on the internet are ruefully shaking their heads at the dismal weakness of your case. I'm not angry at you. I just can't believe you expect anyone to fall for this tripe.

Quote:
No Jack he does go on to explain:
"No bodies, no wreckage, no noise."
Right. So what he said is that this crash did not share the characteristics of a much more common type of crash where a plane hits the ground at a shallow angle and a lower speed.

And what do you infer from that?

I infer that he is describing a crash site which appears consistent with the events which all the evidence (including radar and flight data recorder) tells us ocurred.
Jack by the hedge 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
Old 11th October 2013, 02:55 AM   #342
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Sonofgloin stop pussyfooting

Do you think an aircraft crashed at Shanksville?
Do you think an aircraft hit the Pentagon?

Are you going to turn out to be another 'No Planer'?
Sonofgloin?
dafydd 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
Old 11th October 2013, 02:58 AM   #343
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post

Daffyd you would swear to anything as long as it denigrated your interlocutor...what a surprise comment.
n∑ter∑loc∑u∑tor
n.
1. Someone who takes part in a conversation, often formally or officially.
2. The performer in a minstrel show who is placed midway between the end men and engages in banter with them.

Are you the official or in the minstrel show?

Last edited by dafydd; 11th October 2013 at 03:35 AM.
dafydd 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
Old 11th October 2013, 02:59 AM   #344
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
YL, George was the President, he sent the troops to war over 911 and you reckon he had a brain freeze. Ask anyone of age where they were when they heard that Elvis had sadly died....and they can tell you, but George can't get his 911 story straight. Give me a break.

Yes it is of itself unusual as to how many "firsts" linger around 911.

I agree YL, over time memory like rivers change courses. But all the video I supplied had on the spot, covered with rubble covered witnesses. The real time news reports had an ongoing theme of explosions. Time did not corrupt their testimony; they related what happened minutes ago. If you donít recall that take more fish oil.

WTC 7 was behind 5 and 6 so the debris strike was minimal in comparison. While we are talking minimal, the "collapse" of Building 7 was remarkably tidy. Even though it was sandwiched between the Verizon building and Post Office building, it barely damaged either of them. Unusual you said before about the plane crash, unusual again at the WTC.

Daffyd you would swear to anything as long as it denigrated your interlocutor...what a surprise comment.

Dafydd, I am talking explosions, I am talking demolished within its own footprint, I am talking about the unprecedented collapse of high rises by fire or plane strike....and you can't establish my scenario?


Yes you certainly have a point Jay, especially the video evidence. Why did a load of people and fire-fighters say on video at the scene in real time say that there are explosions happening?

About your secret service evaluation sport. The facts were that there were an unknown number of hijacked aircraft wandering across the sky and the President was at a public location. But the secret service did not even remove George to the safety of the armoured Presidential Limousine. Thatís exactly what they do in the case of a real surprise attack. They don't do anything else if the limousine is the only explosive secure area.....immediately, without hesitation.

Yes and WTC 7 collapsed in sympathy, without the use of an air liner.

Mark the closest I have come to dazed and confused is via Led Zeppelin.
My fellow posters continually threaten not to give me an answer because whatever it is they are saying it is sacrosanct. You have failed to expand on my deferrals to Frank Lowy when I mention Larry's business. Larry is not a just a realtor from Brooklyn....unconnected to the apparatus of power, as I said look up Frank Lowy....both of them fit perfectly with their list of tenants at the time.

Well sport given the plane weighed about 180,000 pound I expected more than a small truck load, the odd tyre, the odd scrap of metal

Silly comment BA.....but three first at one time.....maybe..

Animal the whole area was reclaimed coal mines, the fill was loose waste and soil, small particles very soft. One of my queries with the impact is that in soft fill with equilateral resistance why did one flight recorder end up a load deeper than the other given they sit side by side in the plane?

God Jack, light up the torches and rouse the villagers, Jack is rallying the other non "takers" to action....I'm around here too Jack me lad, or am I not invited to the mob uprising. Stick your head out the window and yell "I'm as mad as hell and I am not going to take anyone disagreeing with me any more...then have an aspirin.

No Jack he does go on to explain:
"No bodies, no wreckage, no noise."

No way TS, Daffyd has only contributed sneers thus far, a running Goebbels style commentary, and good luck to him, it is after all part of the whole.

They used to before 911 tiger.

Nothing at the Pentagon crash, and that one was horizontal...an odd wheel here an odd small metal piece there...but enough documentation survived to name names...sure thing DGM.

Iíll be back.
Where did you study aircraft crash investigation and which qualifications do you have?
dafydd 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
Old 11th October 2013, 03:01 AM   #345
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post

Dafydd, I am talking explosions, I am talking demolished within its own footprint, I am talking about the unprecedented collapse of high rises by fire or plane strike....and you can't establish my scenario?

We all know the fictional truther scenarios. Flesh yours out a bit. What happened to the passengers?
dafydd 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
Old 11th October 2013, 03:28 AM   #346
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,621
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post

Nothing at the Pentagon crash, and that one was horizontal...an odd wheel here an odd small metal piece there...but enough documentation survived to name names...sure thing DGM.

.
That doesn't answer the question. Why am I not surprised.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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
Old 11th October 2013, 03:35 AM   #347
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
That doesn't answer the question. Why am I not surprised.
No surprise there. He never mentions the passengers either.
dafydd 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
Old 11th October 2013, 03:37 AM   #348
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
The 24 hard facts have long been debunked. Still, these deja vu threads are entertaining.
dafydd 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
Old 11th October 2013, 03:51 AM   #349
sonofgloin
Thinker
 
sonofgloin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Sonofgloin stop pussyfooting

Do you think an aircraft crashed at Shanksville?
Do you think an aircraft hit the Pentagon?

Are you going to turn out to be another 'No Planer'?
No planer is a no brainer for some, but I will wait until the Pentagon releases any of the multiple angle surveillance video that they have not released to dispel any myths.
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
nēterēlocēuētor
n.
1. Someone who takes part in a conversation, often formally or officially.
2. The performer in a minstrel show who is placed midway between the end men and engages in banter with them.
God Dafydd you do have a working funny bone, that is the most astute comment to date...thanks pal...
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
The 24 hard facts have long been debunked. Still, these deja vu threads are entertaining.
I know...it's great....

Re the passengers, not much of them left, you have to wonder...plane hits rock or compacted earth....bodies found each and every time. Shanksville, plane hits soft fill and nothing big enough to put in a body bag and the plane as good as disintegrates.Where is the physics in that?
sonofgloin 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
Old 11th October 2013, 04:14 AM   #350
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Re the passengers, not much of them left, you have to wonder...plane hits rock or compacted earth....bodies found each and every time. Shanksville, plane hits soft fill and nothing big enough to put in a body bag and the plane as good as disintegrates.Where is the physics in that?
So you are not a no-planer. We are getting somewhere. Where did you study physics and air crash investigation? How many planes planes crashes have you investigated in situ?
dafydd 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
Old 11th October 2013, 04:59 AM   #351
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by Justin39640 View Post
Almost anything atomized can be a hazard. When i was 16 I worked at a pharmaceutical plant by my home. They had little to no dust control. One overnight shift there was a spark and it leveled the building. Two dead.

Oh, and at about 60 feet above sea level.
Mythbusters to the rescue once again.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
Truthers only insist that there must have been some sinister purpose behind [WTC7] because they already think there's a sinister purpose behind everything. -Horatius
thedopefishlives 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
Old 11th October 2013, 05:13 AM   #352
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,370
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Re the passengers, not much of them left, you have to wonder...plane hits rock or compacted earth....bodies found each and every time. Shanksville, plane hits soft fill and nothing big enough to put in a body bag and the plane as good as disintegrates.Where is the physics in that?
Hmmm. Do you mind if I get a second opinion from somebody who actually knows something about airplane crashes? Or, even better, somebody who knows what WAS actually found at the site. Or even BETTER--maybe you could talk to one of the volunteers who scoured the area picking up pieces of bodies and airplane parts?

The reason why I'd like a second opinion is...I DON'T THINK YOU KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, and it's irritating that you apparently think you do. There. I feel better now. Carry on.
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead 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
Old 11th October 2013, 06:16 AM   #353
HawksFan
Muse
 
HawksFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Posts: 529
I have to ask this...

So if Jet A doesn't explode at sea level, what altitude do they have to reach before they start the engines at airports like, say, Honolulu? And do they have some sort of giant sling-shot to get them there or something?

__________________
"Oh that's right, you're an irrational, UNREASONABLE, piece of <radio edit> who hides behind his computer screen and expects action..." - Aldo
HawksFan is online now   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
Old 11th October 2013, 06:21 AM   #354
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Yes you certainly have a point Jay, especially the video evidence. Why did a load of people and fire-fighters say on video at the scene in real time say that there are explosions happening?
Excuse me, you agree that witness statements are not reliable and then ask me about video taped witness statements!
Incredible!

Quote:
About your secret service evaluation sport. The facts were that there were an unknown number of hijacked aircraft wandering across the sky and the President was at a public location. But the secret service did not even remove George to the safety of the armoured Presidential Limousine. Thatís exactly what they do in the case of a real surprise attack. They don't do anything else if the limousine is the only explosive secure area.....immediately, without hesitation.
You say you read my post yet nowyou post as if you cannot recall what I wrote.
Staying where he cannot be seen, 1300 miles away from where the planes are hitting buildings, in a structure that would be much less identifiable from the air than the large office structures being hit in the NE, IS the safest place to be. No doubt about it.

However, let's say you are correct, as inescapably stupid as that is. You are then saying that every member of the Secret Service squad assigned to GWB was in-on-it. They all knew that when something happened on sept11/01 that the President was not to be moved because he would be in no danger. Instead of following your supposed SOP they were to stay in place.
WHY? Why would the planners of this supposedly extremly complicated conspiracy not simply allow the Secret Service to follow those SOP? It would remove a dozen or more people from the list of those with knowledge that this was known about in advance, and there would be no questions from persons such as you, as to why the POTUS was not moved.
This avenue of JAQing re:9/11/01 is ridiculous.

That is why I laugh at you.
jaydeehess 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
Old 11th October 2013, 06:29 AM   #355
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by HawksFan View Post
I have to ask this...

So if Jet A doesn't explode at sea level, what altitude do they have to reach before they start the engines at airports like, say, Honolulu? And do they have some sort of giant sling-shot to get them there or something?

Well he said 'explode' not burn.
thing is he cites studies that show a pool of it will not 'ignite'. Why he expects it was simply a pool of fuel I do not know. Obviously if one takes a large container of fuel, then tears it apart at 500 MPH, a good quantity of that fuel will be atomized, a bit will actually vapourize. Finding a source of ignition is not hard since as the engines are being torn apart they are a container in which fuel is being burned quite efficiently.
jaydeehess 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
Old 11th October 2013, 06:33 AM   #356
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by HawksFan View Post
I have to ask this...

So if Jet A doesn't explode at sea level, what altitude do they have to reach before they start the engines at airports like, say, Honolulu? And do they have some sort of giant sling-shot to get them there or something?

To be fair, he's technically correct. Jet A is not explosive and, in fact, the liquid has a reasonably high ignition temperature - to the point where it is used as a heat sink in some plane designs, as long as the tanks are full of fuel and not fuel vapors (which was the undoing of TWA 800). As previously stated, however, anything that is sufficiently atomized is highly flammable and potentially even explosive. I'd imagine thousands of gallons of Jet A shooting out of a disintegrating fuel tank at close to 500 mph would be sufficiently atomized to generate a very significant fireball.
__________________
Truthers only insist that there must have been some sinister purpose behind [WTC7] because they already think there's a sinister purpose behind everything. -Horatius
thedopefishlives 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
Old 11th October 2013, 06:42 AM   #357
HawksFan
Muse
 
HawksFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Posts: 529
Yeah, that's kinda what I was getting at. It wasn't an intact pool or tank(s) of fuel. Essentially the floors where the impact happened became a giant ignition chamber.
__________________
"Oh that's right, you're an irrational, UNREASONABLE, piece of <radio edit> who hides behind his computer screen and expects action..." - Aldo
HawksFan is online now   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
Old 11th October 2013, 07:15 AM   #358
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 18,384
Originally Posted by thedopefishlives View Post
Mythbusters to the rescue once again.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Fixed for you. Post only the video reference (yRw4ZRqmxOc), not the whole link, within the yt /yt.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB 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
Old 11th October 2013, 07:47 AM   #359
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Fixed for you. Post only the video reference (yRw4ZRqmxOc), not the whole link, within the yt /yt.
You'd think I'd know that, my day job is computers...
__________________
Truthers only insist that there must have been some sinister purpose behind [WTC7] because they already think there's a sinister purpose behind everything. -Horatius
thedopefishlives 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
Old 11th October 2013, 08:42 AM   #360
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 16,888
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
No planer is a no brainer for some, but I will wait until the Pentagon releases any of the multiple angle surveillance video that they have not released to dispel any myths.

God Dafydd you do have a working funny bone, that is the most astute comment to date...thanks pal...

I know...it's great....

Re the passengers, not much of them left, you have to wonder...plane hits rock or compacted earth....bodies found each and every time. Shanksville, plane hits soft fill and nothing big enough to put in a body bag and the plane as good as disintegrates.Where is the physics in that?
Those people you quoted about the crash, what else did they say? What do you think happened?

What did the coroner say about the lack of bodies? Don't give my your cherry picked sentence or two either. Tell me everything he said about the lack of bodies.

ETA. I note the question mark at the end of the sentence. A question would not be evidence. Show your work young man. Explain why there should have been more human remains.

Last edited by Craig4; 11th October 2013 at 08:52 AM.
Craig4 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
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:57 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.