several easy ways to tell, aluminum is gooey and you wont find 'any' galling, and if you have ever had exposure to a variety of explosions its easy to see that they were anfo type explosions that set off a small amount of jet fuel, imagine a brick os c4 beside a 50 gal drum of fuel oil, next the gas tanks will burst upon impact with the 'egg slicer; steel columns and slice through it like a hot knife through butter all the while spraying fuel backwards and sideways, hence there was no huge flair up immediately upon impact. Very easy to tell even if you are not familiar with video forensics and all the fakery they tried to pull off. Do you have any idea how huge 10,000 gallons of jet fuel misted would be? Finally there is in addition that somewhat distinct raytheon smell. The whole oct poser platform is based upon smoke and mirrors and how high can they stack the bull(*)(*)(*)(*). You can see this because all they have left in this fight when the rubber meets the road is childish name calling...and they pat each other on the back for it no less. For being childish! Get my drift?
(*)(*)(*)(*) missed the edit window here thats what a couple hundred gallons looks like now imagine 10,000
When you look at the videos of the planes hitting the towers, you can see a massive explosion that looks like a fuel explosion outside the tower. The problem I have with pushing the no plane hit the towers theory is that ordinary people who saw the videos are unlikely to buy it and will likely call people who push it nutcases, equating them with those who bring legitimate issues with the OCT to the table. Whether the no planes theory has merit or not, the best eye opener that can readily be accepted by those skeptical of the OCT, is the destruction of the 3 towers. There are just so many other issues with the OCT that can be used to show that it's a scam that we don't need to try to push something that is not going to be convincing to most people and only serves to lose credibility with other much more visible issues. I personally don't believe the majority of the OCT but I'm not convinced that no planes hit the towers even though I fully understand many of the issues with the various videos. So if I can't be convinced, how would one go about convincing anyone who bought the OCT but remains open to other possibilities that no planes hit the towers? All that's going to happen IMO is make that person believe the OCT is correct after all.
There are at least two things that make the 9/11 false flag totally obvious, One is the fact that the airliners are bogus, as shown by the "FLT175" video that is totally an insult to human intelligence. and the other is the collapse of WTC7 ( WTC1, 2 were also blown up, but its more difficult to get past the denial ) WTC7 descending as it did, and note the lame excuses offered up as to why it could not possibly be a controlled demolition.
There was only one plane. The "Naudet video" is clearly false - see the close by people look up when nobody else does. The North Tower blew up from inside. The South Tower was hit by a 767 cargo plane.
Sorry but I looked at the video just now to check the reactions of others in the background. What I do see is the people in front look up and some people behind the firefighter also turning, then it quickly pans toward the tower and the video ends. Both towers were blown apart top down in sequence, beginning with a massive explosion that separated the smaller top portion from the much larger lower portion. The plane(s) that hit the towers are not clearly identifiable and I don't see any markings that would clearly identify them as commercial passenger aircraft.
at least the "truthers" are willing to have a discussion on the subject, the problem with the BIG LIE, is that all too many people simply do not want to even consider the alternatives, they will only accept the official story and that is all. Really sad for AMERICA.
LOLOL...People aren't interested in crazy fantasies like those circulated by 9/11 truth-that's the reality. If you want to blather on about no-planes and other stupid junk, you're welcome to, but to insult rational individuals for not believing this truther insanity, well, that's just sad. You propose there were no planes when clearly there were. I rest my case, and to state that just because no-one considers this insanity as a viable hypothesis, that they 'don't want to consider the alternatives' is just brain dead. All of the 'alternatives' presented by 9/11 truth are crazy.
"If you want to blather on about no-planes and other stupid junk," So in your opinion ... there isn't any evidence that points to no-planes, that is NO evidence at all ... is that what you think?
