It looks like smoke and vaporized fuel from a damaged engine. IT CURLS. Missiles are not a bit curly. My experience and research is four years of sitting in a fire truck a few yards from the runway and watching aircraft take off and land, a few of them with fires on board, or watching them performing in air shows. Ther British airshow video shows what smoke looks like. Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). That smoke at the Pentagon was not from a normally-functioning aircraft engine. It was from a broken one. You get a big FAIL for reading skills on this one.
Oh good, you went with the always trusted method of calling me a shill, insinuating I have "intelligence training" (which would make 1 of us), and then topping it off by "the powers that be are controlling my internets." Classic. Yep, the whole world is out to get you. These message boards, despite letting you spew your crap ad nauseum, is NOW trying to mess with your posting history. I'm positive that under no circumstances could it be user error, the shadow cabal is out to get your internets. What was that? Did you hear that? Something's going on, run! LoL Jesus...
I don't see anything that looks curly here. http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg I see the nose of a craft that's too pointed to be the nose of a 757. The shadow line, which is consistent with the Pentagon shadow, shows it to be a smooth curved surface. The top picture here shows real smoke. http://0911.voila.net/index3.htm It's probably from a missile that's being fired just before the craft which is too small to be a 757 hit the Pentagon. Here's a link to where this was all discussed before. http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/275987-few-debunking-links.html#post1061950663 Disinfo agents will never admit they're wrong when they're shown to be wrong whereas a real truth-seeker will modify his opinion when shown to be wrong. As they will never admit they're wrong and just try to bury the part of the thread in which they're shown to be wrong, all we truthers can do is keep asking them real questions and posting the proof of an inside job so that they have to say lame things to maintain their positions. Their success rate will always be close to zero as long as they can't just talk to each other in front of viewers who haven't seen the proof of an inside job.
Hey Scott, remember when, by using your own criteria, we proved that you were a shill? Can you see the irony in the statement of yours I quoted? Lefty has been providing evidence, confirmed by scientific fact, and CJ has provided hundreds of eye witness testimonies, RADAR, DNA, and mounds of other evidence confirming that American Airlines 77 crashed into the Pentagon. That proves that you're wrong, that the evidence you have is wrong. According, again, to your own statement: Since there is, literally, a mile of evidence showing that AA77 hit the Pentagon, when will you be modifying your opinion? I have not once, in the entire time I've seen you post (between here, JREF, all the other sites) seen you modify your opinion. Despite getting fisted with evidence and factual information. Can you tell me where you have done that? Can you please display a "real" question that you have asked that hasn't been answered? Just one. I don't mean that there was an answer and you just handwaved it away. I mean show a question you've asked that hasn't been answered, and you've acknowledged the answer. Not just ignored it and posted another youboob link or anything like that. Remember, these are your words, and your criteria. Also, by lame things, do you mean trying to locate a shadow in an extremely low def, fish eye camera designed to look at cars 3 feet in front of it, not finding it, and then using that to handwave away CJ's entire website full of evidence and fact? Would that, maybe, be considered one of the "lame" things that might be said?
Totally puilled out of an idiot's butt. There is no reason for that fool to state that the wings should have gouged the grass. Only idiots buy that. His reconstruction of where the plane should have hit is childish. Further, if you look at the smoke trail in that picture, you can see that it is, exactly as I said, CURLY. That web site is a crock of tightly compacted manure put together by liars and charlatans. Oh, by the way, we have a picture of where the left engine did hit something on the ground, between the lawn and the building. Just at the left edge of the picture of the entry hole, there is a semi-circular bite taken out of a low concrete wall. That was where the left engine started breaking up.
[video=youtube;rP9Qp5QWRMQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP9Qp5QWRMQ[/video] This video proves beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever, that WTC building #7, collapsed at free fall speed........ What does this mean? 1.In order for any object to free fall from the air(WTC building #7)at free fall speed,all the "REMAINING" resistance within WTC #7's structure, absolutely was removed simultaneously......This is the natural law of physics as applied to gravity, which is physically and mentally impossible to deny....... 2.The only possible way to remove resistance below WTC building #7 to fall at free fall speed, is to pulverize all of structure and contents instantly from bottom to top...... 3.The only possible way pulverization occurred with WTC building #7's existing structure and contents was through the execution of methodical, choreographed, precise explosive actions causing implosive demolition...... 4.The only possible way to construct a choreographed precise explosive demolition is through careful detailed designing and planning by a certified explosive demolition company...... 5.It is impossible for any certified demolition company to wire a 45 story building within the 8 hour and 35 minute time frame from when the 1st jet airliner struck the North tower at 8:45 am until WTC#7 collapsed.......... The Governments version: What the government INSTRUCTS you to believe or its side of the story, explaining the collapse of WTC building #7......... In the simplest form: The official 9/11 commission report, wants us to believe, that for the 1st time in the history of all mankind,WTC building #7 broke the natural law of physics, as applied to gravity! Since we NOW, can see this (irrefutable clear logical evidence) in plain sight........ The first question that should enter your mind is: Who done it? Partial,possible and unlikely scenarios IMO: Most likely scenario for my conclusions and findings would be an extremely secretive group conspiring , who ordered this planned demolition in an untraceable LONG weaving chain of command down to a top secret SUPERIOR technologically advanced explosive expert (agency),meaning, non public).. Why? Most "public" explosive field experts, who spoke out, never saw or could explain what they saw, for the fact no demolition that they ever conducted or witnessed, in their many years of experience, had the precise style of inward control of the collapse of WTC #7... 1.The conspired group who pulled this "unbelievable" operation off,did it right in front of the public eye,NYC has the largest "public eye" in the entire United States,meaning they had to mix in with the public to be unnoticed for weeks to months........ I think we can now, easily eliminate any so called al-Qaeda or *"foreign"* terrorist members out of the equation........ I will stop here for now........ What is your opinions or rebuttals? *To be continued, starting with: How come I have foreign in Quotation marks?*
That video proves nothing. It's a joke. Complete crap. Building 7 fell for 2 seconds at the speed your suggesting, that's it. It didn't fall neatly into it's own footprint. The reason they play the collapse of building 7 with no sound is because there would have to be deafening explosions going off if it were a CD. That video is a lie.
False premise: there is no such thing as 'free fall speed'. You are repeating bad truther talking points. If you are going to argue physics, you should have a conversational grasp of what those physics are.
You pro-official version people can pretend all you want. Leftysergeant destroyed his credibility with this. (from post #91) (from post #92) (from post #95) First you say the jet exhaust is normal. Then, when you realize how lame your explanation is, you change your stand. Here you say it's from a damaged engine. You said that I would see that you were right by looking at the way the exhaust leaves a jet engine at an airshow. I link to an airshow in which the exhaust shows you to be wrong and you say the video is irrelevant and then lamely post a video which shows smoke that isn't even coming from the engine. You look totally silly. I've found that the way to deal with shills is to ask them to address the clearest anomalies so they have to say some really lame things to maintain their positions which exposes them as shills. Leftysergeant was totally checkmated on that issue and he just tap dance around and hoped it would blow over. Now he's acting as if the whole thing had never happened. Hey leftysergeant... Your lame responses to that issue destroyed your credibility. It's obvious that you don't even believe your own arguments. You know that 9/11 was an inside job as well as the truthers do. The Black Knights won't admit they're cornered even when it's so obvious that an eight-year-old could see it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4
Whoa, You are really reaching for AIR, with your free falling (less AIR resistance) rebuttal...........Lol........
Common sense? Noun Good sense and sound judgment in practical matters. Try practicing it sometime.. It is natural wisdom when applied.........
You started with a false premise. Everything that follows your premise is therefore false. If you feel I'm in error, then please: tell me the calculation of 'free fall speed'.
You really need to pay more attention. It has been common knowledge since thye day after the attacks that Flt77 hit a bunch of light poles on the way in and that the right engine was damaged, thus was emitting smoke as it crossed the open lawn. Do take your fingers out of you ears, stop warbling and don't rely so much on web sites put up by idiots and liars like Lyte Trip and his tree fort buddies.
I'm bored as all get out at work, and don't have a meeting until 2:30 so I guess I'll go step by step. Partially right, here are the Facts: That the inner columns below the east penthouse gave out, and for a brief period pulled the perimeter down. Is that what you meant? So close to being all the way true, I like it. However, the one flaw in your argument is that the building wasn't in freefall for the entire collapse. Meaning that there was resistence, as shown by the times above. Please feel free to locate more factual times if you possibly can. (I can't believe I'm debunking dick gage, ugh. Talk about the way back time machine). That means that there was no CD. Also, no seisometer in the entire city of New York (in which there were many) picked up any explosions. They would have been "MASSIVE" had their been a CD. It would have been impossible to hide. Hmm, pulverize huh? That's some scary lingo you're throwing around. See my comments above. There are also 0 reports of charges detonating, no det cord found, no remote transmitters, and no evidence of explosives in the dust. Also, building 7 twisted on the way down, had the structure and contents been "PULVERIZED" it would have fell straight down. It wouldn't have been strewn across 2 streets and fallen into another building. Right, but we already covered the fact that the inner pulverizing from explosives didn't happen. Really? Is that so? Care to tell me how they prepped this building? It was on fire after WTC 1 fell, which would make planting them then impossible. Before that there was absolutely no way to know that WTC 1 would fall on it, which would make prepping also impossible. Can you clear that up for me? Uh, yeah, right? I mean, doesn't that kind of go against your whole post? I think you debunked yourself. Haha instructs huh? I don't think the government has instructed anything. They had the NIST create the reports, if you believe them or not they don't care. As shown here, there are a select few who don't believe anything in it, and the government couldn't care less. Those are some big words. "In the history of mankind." It was also the first time in the history of all mankind that airplanes were flown into 110 storey sky scrapers when they were jam packed full of fuel at top speeds. However, that sentence isn't even true. Steel has been melting in fires for the entirety of mankind. Your own incredulity notwithstanding. We did? Where? And furthermore, why are you talking for me? I didn't say it was irrefutable, clear, logical, or hell...even evidence. Don't put words in my mouth. Where did dickie gage and his little peons pull this crap out of? That was mine anyway. Right? LoL. Who would make this crap up to try and make a buck? Talk about low lifes. Yeah...the president can't keep semen on a dress a secret, but he's able to pull this off with no problem. Seems logical. Is the answer "the lulz"? Because it wasn't a demo. You don't see how ludicrous that theory is? How completely ridicolous such a plan would be to pull off? You can, but we weren't actually relying on you for factual information anyway. Well, it was fun. Dick Gage is a snakeoil salesman that will tell you anything you want to hear for a buck. He peddles his woo to avoid having to work a real job like the rest of America. He hasn't worked on or designed a sky scraper and he has no qualifications that make his opinion worth a damn thing.
Funny thing on those light poles. Some were knocked down that weren't in the flight path, and some were still standing that WERE in the flight path. WHOOPS!!!! ROFL!
Wrong fraud,they WERE in the flight path,otherwise they wouldn't have been knocked down.....http://aneta.org/theories/Pentagon/LightPoles/LightPoleWitnesses.htm
You're pulling facts out of the latrine pit again. Every overhead photo I have seen has the poles in the flight path.
That was a lame attempt at damage-control by sophists. Anyway, you sidestepped the issue I raised and now you're trying to bury it because you know you're cornered by it. Here it is again. (post #110) http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/290910-do-you-trust-us-government-11.html#post1062370641 You first said it was normal for jet exhaust to look like this... http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg (The supposed "Jet exhaust" is the object on the right that looks like the nose of a craft that's to pointed to be that of a 757.) ...and then change to the appearance of the smoke in this picture. http://0911.voila.net/index3.htm You then changed your stand to say the object that looks like the nose that's too pointed to be that of a 757 was smoke from a damaged engine. You first said it was normal for smoke to behave like that. You destroyed your credibility when you said that. You said it and now you can't change it. Everybody sees what you said. All you can do now is try to bury the issue. Why don't you explain why you first said that behavior of the smoke was normal? The light pole issue can be explained so the downed light poles doesn't prove anything. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9632 Here's where I dealt with all of this before. http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/275987-few-debunking-links.html#post1061950663
You didn't "deal" with anything before, you got your ass handed to you when you tried peddling woo. You didn't deal, you got dealt. If you want to talk about blown credibility, look in the mirror.
Anyone who actually reads the discussion will see that this guy is grossly misrepresenting what happened there. http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/275987-few-debunking-links.html#post1061950663 No matter how silly their explanations are, they have the attitude that they're winning. Hey plague311... Do you agree with what leftysergeant said about the behavior of the smoke? I'm referring to his first explanation. I'm not referring to his second explanation about the damaged engine.
First off, I'm not misrepresenting anything. I encourage people to read the thread, or even look up the linkbot garbage you post under all your other names, at all the other boards. You call people shills, but we've proven that by using your own standard, you are a shill. You post your links at dozens of message boards, even message boards that request you to leave. You make people uncomfortable, and spam this stuff all over the internet. You're pushing an agenda, and it's as blatant as that. People can read the thread, do the research, and know you lie. In regards to the smoke, I don't have the technical knowledge required to evaluate something of that level. I can research it, and find out for sure, but I look at the question like this, "If the smoke is curly, shaped like a chicken, or straight as an arrow, would any of those answers prove the outcome of 9/11?" The answer to that question is a resounding, "no". It wouldn't at all. ALL the other overwhelming evidence outweighs the petty, dumb, arbitrary crap that you pick out to try and disprove 9/11. Just a hint, if your argument has come down to random smoke trails, and shadows from fish eye lens cameras, you've already lost. That's it, game over.
