What does it matter if he writes a five paragraph essay with immaculate sources, you're going to discredit it. No matter what he says, or anyone else for that matter, it is wrong. You are an obstructionist.
I am thinking that the "Military Industrial Complex" sank the Arizona at Pearl Harbor and lets see, oh yes and made the French loss in Viet Nam go we could move in. Man lets move on. It is over, Bush didn't do it.
Really? So you believe Koko is right that the government has the technology to insert CGI into cameras from every angle and it doesn't matter if it is TV cameras or personal cameras? Wow. Or are you still bitter that you can't come up with a single good point, so you try to pretend that the people who point out your foolishness are responsible for your idiocy when the only real person responsible for your idiocy is you? Face it, Jango. You have nothing. I know it. You know it. You've been reduced to pathetic excuses as to why you failed so miserably.
So you think that it only took 9 months to achieve this? LOL Here is another website that you would like since it is right up your alley. http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=af07
No. But I would like to have a conversation about something in that ballpark, if you don't mind. I'm wanting to understand something. Oh come off it, already. You know I'm not an idiot. And, yes, my feelings are hurt. But no, I am not bitter. While I am cynical in nature, I am not resentful. But do me a favor though, and ask your Marine friends if they think Smedley Butler is a disgrace to the Marine Corps. It's not an excuse, it is the truth. You are an obstructionist.
An awful lot went into the report about the towers even to the point of building full scale floor spaces to test the result of fire and heat and all of this data is ignored by truthers. Independent reports using very sophisticated computer modelling by at least 5 or more different agencies or organizations, some not governmental provided such things as very sophisticated computer modelling to try and figure out what happened when a 757 flies into a building at 500 or so mph with full disclosure of the results. How is this data treated? It isn't, it is ignored for emotional or even ridiculous fantasies. What do truthers have? An alleged leader of the movement that has a degree in divinity. I find that kind of appropriate.
Ask away. Didn't call you an idiot. One does not have to be an idiot to engage in idiocy. Will do. Did he make (*)(*)(*)(*) up too? What am I obstructing? Not a (*)(*)(*)(*) thing. Have I ever told you to shut up? No. Calling others obstructionists to cover your own failures is nothing but an excuse as I correctly pointed out.
Well, there is footage of the plane coming through the south tower, but there is conflicting pictures that show no exit wound per se. I don't understand. So if there is no hole, how did the column with the landing tire end up on Versey St?
NIST NCSTAR1-2B. Figure 9-127 documents how Column 253 was broken over a six-foot span, more than enough to pass the observed debris. Figure 9-133 on page 357 (describing the engine path) and the scenario described in Figure 9-137 on page 362 (describing the expected trajectory of ejected components originating in the fuselage) also match. This is also reasonably consistent with the model prediction as shown in Figure 9-130 on page 354. This is consistent with the photo below. Note that the entire plane did not exit the building, a few large parts (the largest being the core of one engine) punched holes. This could have almost passed through a window.
You really want to rehash the video fakery angle? I linked 2 videos in http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/248453-wnyw-fox-5-9-11-footage.html where a movie special effects expert explained why the CGI insertion BS is just that -- BS but you dismissed them. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4669137903152322593 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4669137903152322593 You chose to believe musician Ace Baker over video special effects expert Steve Wright. And now you bring it up again? Why? Because on Sunday football games they can make the first down markers appear on the field? Is that why truthers think that images of airplanes can be inserted into real-time broadcasts? Which doesn't even begin to explain how these images would show up in personal video recorder images. Oh, I forgot, the gubmint confiscated every single video and modified it before giving it back to the owners and the owners are too terrified to tell anyone that their video was modified by the gubmint. To be fair, Jango, I'm not saying you've made the claims in the last two paragraphs but several other truthers have.
You're making things up Dave. I didn't necessarily side with Baker, I just asked follow up questions, which it seems you were unable to answer.
You stated that the expert's answers were "suspicious" or "did not suffice" and I pointed you to the exact timestamps in the video where his explanations were given. There were two people with opposing viewpoints in that video -- Baker and Wright. You didn't like Wright's explanation. So how is that not siding with Baker? Then you went off on tangents about trusting the government, the failure of K12 education with respect to US History, and a host of other "reasons" why you believe the government is guilty because they've done bad things in the past. In reviewing that thread, it appears that I did answer your questions. However, there seems to be a question that I asked of you that you did not answer.
You have a hole more than large enough for an engine and a landing gear to pass through on the East corner of the building along with the adjacent East wall. Both the landing gear and the engine were identified as the starboard (right) engine and landing gear, so this fits given Flight 175 came in at an angle. Do you understand now?
I noticed this tonight: “I ran into the subway and made it to about Canal Street. The subway was stopping intermittently and I was getting scared that I would get stuck underground. When I came out, people were running up the street. I asked what was happening and the first thing someone said to me was that the second tower had been hit and that we were under attack. One of the first things that ran through my mind was that I could be covering the biggest story of my lifetime right here in New York. So, I ran towards the Trade Center towers. When I first came up to the Canal, I made one picture of the two towers still standing then I began running. I heard this “poof” and I reached the camera up to make a picture of the building exploding. There were shards of steel coming down the avenue. I ducked into a vestibule and waited for the smoke to settle. Then, I started making my way closer and closer to the Trade Center, going through the debris and passing fire engines.” Caption: Smoke and debris fill the air after one of the World Trade Center towers in New York City collapsed September 11, 2001. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton http://blogs.reuters.com/fullfocus/2011/09/01/photographer-notebook-shannon-stapleton/#a=1 On Page 213, where his photo is credited, how did he take a close-up, and at level height of the South Tower? http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101356 And the issue of the nosecone of the plane coming through the South Tower is still unresolved. We can see it. But, there is no photographic evidence of an exit wound. How do you explain that one?
You must be looking at different pictures than I am. Mind sourcing the images that you're looking at?
He didn't come across as suspicious himself, but his claims are suspicious. The phenomenon he referenced, it only happened with the nose out shot. No where else did it happen on 9/11. How you say that isn't odd is odd to me.
Look at the one posted by Hannibal. You can see the corner has a sizeable hole and the East face of the tower has a large hole.
the "break" is 1/2 the width of a window. it could not have passed through a window but it could have passed through a break less than 1/2 the size of a window. typical trougher bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and gubafia fraud, misprision
