View Single Post
Old 05-14-2005, 11:34 PM
truebeliever truebeliever is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,768
Default Re: The 911 Coincidence Guide

Thanx JIMBO...i enjoy a good debate.

I use Mozilla Firefox by the way and I have to say without equivocation it 'pisses' all over Explorer.

Loads at 3 times the speed most times as well.

I've been using it for 2 years and love it. After all that! I had to use Exploreer to view the Flash Animation.

First off, raise your hands if you've ever seen a Boeing 767 fly into a large steel structure? a report with pics on what happens to a 767 when it hits a hard structure at 400knots?..none o.k...

At that frame you should notice how the “right-wing” has completely disappeared into the building, (ghost like), & there is nothing, not even a shadow of a “ghost” on that outside wall.
You are viewing an enlarged, poor quality Flash Animation. Taken originally on a basic hand held cam corder.

The object and the various "bits" of that object once it impacts, are moving at approximately 400knots. The camera is recording at 24 frames a second and is missing HEAPS of stuff.

Again...the wings ESPECIALLY, are thin and ONLY strong in the 'lateral' other words they 'bend' incredibly up and down with great strength but 'shatter' into confetti when impacted as they were.

As a little thought experiment picture the 767 sitting on the gound. Now "fire" an outside beam of the WTC at the 'outer' wing at would, and did, slice through it like butter. Effortlessly.

Have a look at these beams from these three different views...they ar'nt matchsticks and are solid steel.

The pod people say it was ALL a holographic image and explosives inside the building...have a gander at the bent INWARDS steel beams. Must I continue? The Pod people are...tossers. Sorry. I mean no insult to you.

Remember also that even though you keep saying you saw it w/ your own eyes, the premise of this ”theory” is the fact that these ”frames were previously edited” & perhaps ”pre-mixed” w/ a footing of the building by some video technician, & then later broadcast on that day (911). So, what we saw “could have been completely fabricated, in a studio-lab, way in advance”.
Actually my comment was actually more tounge in cheek. In the end thats all we have...the footage, and they could quite frankly do anything they like with it.

I just choose to go with the most reasonable explanation available to us at the time.

It's like the moon landing. I will not skip a beat if it turns out to be faked. But i think...on balance...the evidence is weak and has been thouroughly discredited in most quaters...except the news footage of them at the news conference where they all have expressions worthy of a condemned man on their faces.

Quote: after the entire plane disappears into the building, at that very moment, there is nothing but shadows & a couple of puffs of smoke…” may seem like a long time but it's 24 frames per second converted to 6 frames per second slow mo in a flash format...we are talking split seconds here. The WTC is could hold the entire contents easily for that split second before it billows out...remember...this IS importent and has not been amplified enough...jet fuel is just very pure kerosine. The same you put in a kerosine heater but highly refined so to be spotlessly clean.

You can throw a match in jet fuel and it will simply go out as if you put it in water.

A jet engine works by "compressing" fuel and air at enormouse pressures and then "igniting" one great big turbo/supercharger...if you put a highly volitile fuel in their it will pre-ignite and blow the engine up. I'd walk through a pool of Kerosine smoking a pipe for a thousand bucks! Well, maybe not, but i'd do it if my life depended on it quite sure of my need to tempt fate.

The flash at the nose of the aircraft is either the aircraft skin 'scraping' between two steel beams. Remember, two metal objects are impacting at 400knots. Thats almost the speed of a handgun round.

It may also be simply some part of the electronic avionics going could be a million and one things but people keep insisting..."look, look pods and missiles"...fuck! Ridiculous. Honestly...ridiculous...based on the evidence offered.

As a side note...note the two pics here of the Pentagon impact...see the difference re: white hot flash of high explosive followed by left over fuel ignition. Compare it to pics of the WTC where there was NO explosive...High explosives generate intense heat (thousands of degrees) and pressure for a split second.

Heres a pic comparing a ALCM to a hard would it be to do one up a little ala: Northwoods document? Combined with high speed and low altitude? Who could tell and you might just survive it going over your head.

I dont want to suggest i'm %100 right but i have to confess the arguments for alot of this stuff is easily explained by a more 'reasonable' explanation.

However! I am only after the truth so please keep posting...i'm sure we can both learn something. In the end we can agree to disagree or agree.

Best Jimbo
[size=medium]\"The Office\" is the greatest comedy...ever. [/size]
Reply With Quote