This is rather characteristic of the "loyal opposition" what is ( and has been happening for too long ) is simply an off-handed dismissal of the "truther" claims without any supporting evidence. May I present some facts: > There is at this time, no link to a report that documents any search for explosive traces or explosive residue at ground zero or the Pentagon. > There is no documented inventory of airliner parts for any of the airliners alleged to have been hijacked & uses as weapons. > There is the matter of probability in that 3 steel framed buildings collapsed into complete destruction on 9/11/2001 ( what are the odds? ) > There is also an item that has never been put to rest as in proven or what, that is the allegation that an airliner could possibly be operated at >500 mph at an altitude <1000ft. Why doesn't Boeing weigh in on this? These unanswered questions, points of debate, are show-stoppers, unless these issues can be resolved, there is absolutely no proof at all of the official story.
Are you accusing UA and AA, as well as the FAA and the insurance companies for the airlines and the passengers to ALL be 'in on it'? Because that's what would be involved to fake the manifestos. Tell me the probability on that scenario.
Rather much better than the hijacked airliners used at weapons scenario. obvious white-wash job at "documenting" the evidence. The evidence that was presented, such as the cell phone calls from the airliners being at the very least highly questionable and most probably impossible, and with that the mainstream media is either in total complicity or having been fooled into going along with the fraud, has been supporting the idea that the official story is true, that is the whole Hijacked Airliners bit being real, when in fact the "evidence" really doesn't support this version of events. - - - Updated - - - The fact that you have not provided EVIDENCE speaks volumes, have a nice day : )
Evidence such as inventories of aircraft bits, or actual proof that its possible to not only fly but control and airliner >500 mph @ <1000ft altitude. Evidence such as proof that the towers & 7 "collapsed" because of fires, when total destruction of anything in and of itself is a suspicious feature of the crime scene. The fact that there is so little evidence at all is part of the problem. The FBI & indeed the President are simply employees of the taxpayers, do you personally think you are getting good value for your tax dollars?
Eye witnesses, ATC tracking the aircraft, aircraft parts at the scenes, etc. It ain't rocket science.
Point> the mainstream media was the first to assert that hijacked airliners were used as weapons, however given that there is no inventory of aircraft bits from any of the crash sites, there is no proof that any of the flights existed at all. point> it is a fact that the total destruction of anything is considered suspicious at a crime scene, therefore 3 buildings completely destroyed should have set off alarms big-time, where is the report on the testing for explosives? point> Do you understand that the video of the alleged FLT175 is an obvious fake because the "aircraft" doesn't slow down upon impact ( among other features of this cartoon presented as a real aircraft crash )
Math & science: http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/speed/ The evidence, once the various videos that show "FLT175" crashing into the tower, are a damning indictment of the mainstream media for promoting the idea that this event was the product of an airliner crashing into the tower.
The point of the page you posted is completely moot. Here's why.... Eyewitnesses on the ground saw BOTH planes crash into the towers Multiple videos exist, taken from multiple location by completely different people Jetliner parts were found all around ground zero, as well as, on the roof of other buildings. Radar tracked both flights Eyewitnesses/Air Traffic Controllers eyewitnessed the planes approach and crash into the towers and last, but certainly not least... This person, is just yet another idiot, who has no idea about what he is attempting to claim.
Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable, and as for the multiple videos, all of them show the airliner penetrating the wall without slowing down, clearly FAKE video. Your incredulity not withstanding. and as for the "airplane parts" where is the inventory of airliner bits? just exactly how were the planes accounted for?
Your claim a loss of velocity would be captured on the videos is BULSH. None of the video are of high enough quality or speed to detect any noticable loss of speed. Second, you would have to account for all those different videos being faked without the photographers exposing the fact that someone messed with their videos. Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Again, your question is a red herring. FACT, plane parts from both planes were found, photographed and identified. Your "inventory" claim makes absolutely no difference. What's clear is, you lack the skills to determine fact from fiction and your hope is to conflate and obfuscate.
Lack of following standard procedure with airliner crashes should have gotten some public employees dismissed for total incompetence. Also, given 30/fps video ( NTSC standard ) the aircraft could have experienced a deceleration of 125 mph and not be discernible in the video, however at 125 mph loss of speed that would put the g factor at >15 therefore the aircraft would break up at those stress levels, the plane not slowing down is a serious factor here because any resistance at all would take its toll on the speed of the aircraft and most certainly the resistance offered up by steel box columns would have slowed the aircraft by at least 125 mph and that would produce g forces that would destroy the aircraft.
Wow, you have not read anything that has been posted refuting everything you have said. I guess having your head in the sand is just hunky dory for you.
Another red herring. Exactly what "standard procedures" were not followed? Let see, two planes crashed into the WTC, one into the Pentagon...do you really believe not "following standard procedure" would cost employees their jobs? Why? How could they have changed what happened? BULSH. Simple, BULSH. You keep ignoring the side of the building was being compromised, it was giving way to the plane. Your claim is factually incorrect. All the videos that show flt 175 crashing into the wtc show both plane impacting and the damage to the building. How did "they" gather up all those videos, all taken from different angles, differen exposures, differnent focus....and add a plane and building damage to everyone of those videos and photos without the knowledge or complaint of those who took them?
I'm not here to speculate about HOW it was done, lets first get a handle on what was done. Note that any aircraft to skyscraper collision of the sort that was on 9/11, the aircraft would not only have to sever the exterior box columns but would have to encounter edge on, a 4" thick steel reinforced concrete deck, in the case of the "FLT11" & "FLT175" aircraft by the tilt of the gash, the airliner would have to encounter 4 or 5 of these decks to penetrate. So the airliner crashes into the wall breaks 5 or 6 box columns to get the nose through, and then when the wings get involved there is another 2 dozen box columns to break to get the wings through the wall and with all that, the speed reduction would have to be limited to 125 mph and at that rate of deceleration we are looking at >15 g for the forces involved and that is a guaranteed break up the aircraft right now. This is NOT personal "incredulity" this is science, the fact remains that if anything were to penetrate a wall such as at the WTC, the energy required to penetrate would be significant so as to cause major g forced on the aircraft and at that point the aircraft is history, its done, only a mass of aircraft bits would have struck the wall from the moment of one wing contacting the wall before the other wing. The whole 9/11/2001 scenario is riddled with inconsistencies & bits that flat out violate the laws of physics. a critical bit of the attack is the speed of the airliners that is "FLT11" "FLT175" "FLT77" to accomplish the destruction that was alleged to have been done by the aircraft however has it really been proven to your satisfaction that an airliner can be operated at >500 mph @ < 1000 ft altitude ? and if so, would you please share with me that proof.
How nice of you do gloss over the fact that all these independent videos and photos debunk you assertion. You presuppose "fake"...well, you cannot and have not proved "fake", because you can't and they aren't. Second, the claim that jets can't "operate" at that speed/altitude is BULSH. Ever been to a plane show and see a jetliner fly by just a couple hundred feet off the ground? Lets not forget, they weren't concerned about landing, angry passengers, complaints.....they had one goal, CRASH. Prove it. I challenge you...AND I KNOW you can't. Your just making an assertion. You lack the math and the physics.
If an airliner were to pass the grandstand at say 300 mph that would be quite impressive enough, you find a documented airshow stunt where an airliner was operated at >500 MPH @ less than a thousand ft altitude. Where is it? Don't make the assumption that since there are several videos that show the same thing, that all of them are perfectly correct. It is within the possibility of the perpetrators of the BIG LIE to have multiple videos to make case for "FLT175" being real when in fact an airliner can not be expected to penetrate a wall as did the alleged "FLT175".
Still waiting for you to back up your bullsh!t. You claim a jetline CANNOT fly at near 500mph under 1000ft alt. Prove it. Show the math. I CHALLENGE YOU. They would ALL HAVE TO BE CORRECT because the all show the same thing. How is that possible it "they" added the plane...how would "they" have added it to all those videos??? Stop waffling an explain that. The problem with you is...you're basing your "fake" claim as if there is only one video, there isn't and unless you can account for how all those videos and photos show the same exact thing, you can't make your "fake" claim.
This is one of the logical errors, you ask to have it explained HOW it was done before we have nailed down what was done. It is clear that there is a fraud going on here, the mainstream media is at least complicit in the fraud. We see an aircraft as much as melt into the side of a building ( a steel framed skyscraper at that ) and people are expected to simply accept what they are told, that is it was "FLT175" and that is all there is to it, not so fast, there are all sorts of very serious problems with what is being presented and I want to be very clear about what these problems are before anything else gets done. I am NOT going to speculate as to HOW it was done however WHAT was done is obvious.
