This pilot doesnt even believe 9/11 story!

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Dude111, Sep 20, 2007.

  1. sammas47

    sammas47 Peon

    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #101

    You being adamant doesn't change the fact. The website doesn't just give opinion like you are doing. It has snaps in it. Open your eyes and look at them at least once. Ohh yeah.. don't open your mind too.


    I know you are scared to go and have a look. So here it is:

    [​IMG]

    A photograph of the core when it was being constructed.

    If you are not able to see it on this page, go here: 911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/ssm/dsc00169.jpg
     
    sammas47, Oct 3, 2007 IP
  2. lorien1973

    lorien1973 Notable Member

    Messages:
    12,206
    Likes Received:
    601
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #102
    It is? I must have missed the points you previously claimed as fact but have not yet shown to be true. I'm still waiting on video showing a flash before impact - I think you promised that in your original post, didn't you? And some sort of actual evidence beyond your own speculation that proves anything contrary to what is already known.
     
    lorien1973, Oct 3, 2007 IP
  3. mcfox

    mcfox Wind Maker

    Messages:
    7,526
    Likes Received:
    716
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #103
    From an earlier thread of mine but worth restating. (My favourite is the 'pod' in close up.)

     
    mcfox, Oct 3, 2007 IP
  4. sammas47

    sammas47 Peon

    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #104

    www.letsroll911.org/phpwebsite/index.php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=view&ANN_id=16


    Now you have to explain how the building could collapse in about the time it takes for a stone to fall from the 110th to ground in free fall. Pan cake hypothesis, in order to be consistent with law of conservation of momentum, it requires that the collapse time should be much larger than what it actually took
     
    sammas47, Oct 3, 2007 IP
  5. sammas47

    sammas47 Peon

    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #105
    Mcfox, many of the videos doesn't exist anymore in the links that you provided. I think they were too prompt to remove them. There are many videos that violate the rules, but some videos gets thrown out very very promptly.
     
    sammas47, Oct 3, 2007 IP
  6. debunked

    debunked Prominent Member

    Messages:
    7,298
    Likes Received:
    416
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #106
     
    debunked, Oct 3, 2007 IP
  7. lorien1973

    lorien1973 Notable Member

    Messages:
    12,206
    Likes Received:
    601
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #107
    That is hilarious. I, too, am stunned that when the plane's nose hit the building there was a small explosion. Impossible to believe, isn't it?

    Dude. You cannot be serious, can you? Really?

    I'm glad you completed 8th grade physics. Here, again, is your free fall fallacy:

    http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm
     
    lorien1973, Oct 3, 2007 IP
  8. debunked

    debunked Prominent Member

    Messages:
    7,298
    Likes Received:
    416
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #108
    I just watched portions of the video on that link, now I am convinced there was a rocket attached and that it blew up into the side of the tower!! NOT...

    The anomoly is a flat bottom portion of the jet between the wings, the flash appears to be sun reflection off of the windows or cockpit as it is hitting the building (not before like the guy kept repeating, but during the impact.)

    The video is done with the same abosolute authority/wisdom/knowledge that the videos they use in schools. Everything is spoken as a matter of fact. But between that they have the trufer music - ooohhh scary!



    copy cat
     
    debunked, Oct 3, 2007 IP
  9. sammas47

    sammas47 Peon

    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #109

    Ok.. here is what the website you mentioned says:

     
    sammas47, Oct 3, 2007 IP
  10. sammas47

    sammas47 Peon

    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #110
    A sun reflection should be visible from one angle, not from 4 different angles as it does in this case.
     
    sammas47, Oct 3, 2007 IP
  11. debunked

    debunked Prominent Member

    Messages:
    7,298
    Likes Received:
    416
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #111
     
    debunked, Oct 3, 2007 IP
  12. debunked

    debunked Prominent Member

    Messages:
    7,298
    Likes Received:
    416
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #112
    So the front of the jet is all square with nothing rounded then. Sure, got it.
     
    debunked, Oct 3, 2007 IP
  13. sammas47

    sammas47 Peon

    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #113
     
    sammas47, Oct 3, 2007 IP
  14. sammas47

    sammas47 Peon

    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #114
     
    sammas47, Oct 3, 2007 IP
  15. sammas47

    sammas47 Peon

    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #115
    We see the flash, not only when we look at it from the sides, but also when we look at it from behind the plane. You mean that the front part of the jet is spherical, and that day there were two suns shining? Or you didn't get it yet?
     
    sammas47, Oct 3, 2007 IP
  16. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #116
     
    Mia, Oct 3, 2007 IP
  17. debunked

    debunked Prominent Member

    Messages:
    7,298
    Likes Received:
    416
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #117
    Oh, I get it, the charge in the nose was set off by the mere vibration of air bouncing back to the nose at the moment of impact and the trigger mechanism and type of explosives where so spontaneous that we see a flash at the moment of impact. WOW, Bush and Cheney and the illuminati are much more advanced than I ever thought!
     
    debunked, Oct 3, 2007 IP
  18. sammas47

    sammas47 Peon

    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #118
    Hilarious!!

    It doesn't even need vibration for electric charge to get discharged. It just needs another surface, where when the electric charge gets to spread it self, reduced the electric potential energy of the system. But that's still a hypothesis. We have no evidence that such a thing ever happened in this case.
     
    sammas47, Oct 3, 2007 IP
  19. debunked

    debunked Prominent Member

    Messages:
    7,298
    Likes Received:
    416
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #119
    The speed and the look of the flash during contact makes me doubt the possibility of it being any type of explosion. It looks like a reflection of light by color, size, placement and timing. It would take an explosives expert and a video of an explosion that would even come close to looking that way to convince me otherwise.
     
    debunked, Oct 3, 2007 IP
  20. The Webmaster

    The Webmaster IdeasOfOne

    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    718
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #120
    Dude, Just answer my question, explain how was it controlled demolition? How and what exactly did they control? Please explain the series of events..

    Please tell me where did they set the explosives to demolish the building(s).
    And no do not post a link to any 911 site, explain in your words..
     
    The Webmaster, Oct 3, 2007 IP