Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Who Supports The Official 9/11 Govt Cover Stories
- Thread starter Terral
- Start date
eots
no fly list
as if i'm going to start listening to you nowif pm links to "peer reviewed experts" then its not pm making that call
sheeesh
i thought i told you to f-off ?
well that would be a diffrent response..to expect that is insanity by your definition....
you might be learningas if i'm going to start listening to you nowi thought i told you to f-off ?
well that would be a diffrent response..to expect that is insanity by your definition....
LOL
none of your so called academic studies are peer reviewed..they have no access to classified information and more often than not link right back to the so called experts used by.....popular mechanics....and yes you do ingnore these real life experts and patriots
Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report
Of course they are peer reviewed. Do you have any idea how a paper gets published in an academic journal? It must be peer reviewed.
eots
no fly list
Submitted by ProfJones on Tue, 04/07/2009 - 12:07pm.
Since the days of Sir Isaac Newton, Science has proceeded through the publication of peer-reviewed papers. Peer-review means a thorough reading, commentary and even challenge before publication by "peers", that is, other PhD's and professors. This paper was thoroughly peer-reviewed with several pages of tough comments that required of our team MONTHS of additional experiments and studies. It was the toughest peer-review I've ever had, including THREE papers for which I was first author in NATURE. (Please note that Prof. Harrit is first author on this paper.) We sought an established journal that would allow us a LONG paper (this paper is 25 pages long) with MANY COLOR IMAGES AND GRAPHS. Such a scientific journal is not easy to find. Page charges are common for scientific journals these days, and are typically paid by the University of the first or second author (as is the case with this paper) or by an external grant.
A peer-reviewed journal is also called a "refereed" journal. Peer-reviewers are almost always anonymous for scientific publications like this -- that is standard in the scientific world. While authors commonly recommend potential peer-reviewers, editors choose the referees and usually pick at least one or two reviewers that the authors did NOT mention -- and that is almost certainly the case with this paper (based on commentary we received from the reviewers). In the end, all the reviewers -- who were selected by the editor(s) -- approved publication. Thus, the paper was subjected to peer review by the editor or editors, and it passed the peer-review process.
Debunkers may raise all sorts of objections on forums, such as "Oh, it's just paint" or "the aluminum is bound up in kaolin." We have answered those questions in the paper, and shown them to be nonsense, but you have to read to find the answers. I may also provide answers here and in emails, often quoting from the paper to show that the answers are already in it.
Here's what you need to know (especially if you are not a scientist): UNLESS AN OBJECTOR ACTUALLY PUBLISHES HIS OR HER OBJECTION IN A PEER-REVIEWED ESTABLISHED JOURNAL (yes that would include Bentham Scientific journals), THEN THE OBJECTION IS NOT CONSIDERED SERIOUS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT NON-PUBLISHED OBJECTIONS EITHER.
So how do you, as a non-scientist, discern whether the arguments are valid or not? You should first ask, "is the objection PUBLISHED in an ESTABLISHED PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL?" If not, you can and should say -- "I will wait to see this formally published in a refereed scientific journal. Until then, the published peer-reviewed work by Harrit et al. stands. "
BTW, there also has been no PUBLISHED REFEREED paper yet that counters either the "Fourteen Points" paper or the "Environmental Anomalies" papers we published last year.
IF it is so easy to publish in Bentham Scientific journals, or if these are "vanity publications" (note: there is no factual basis for these charges) -- then why don't the objectors write up their objections and get them peer-reviewed and published?? The fact is, it is not easy, as serious objectors will find out.
Our results have passed the gauntlet of peer-review (including in this case, review at BYU consistent with the fact that there are two authors from BYU).
We say that this paper has the "imprimatur of peer-review". That is a significant breakthrough. You cannot say that of big-foot or Elvis sightings... We are now in a different world from such things, the world of the published scientific community. CAN YOU APPRECIATE THE DIFFERENCE? I hope so. And this is what has our opponents so worried IMO...
What you need to know about "Peer-review" | 911Blogger.com
Since the days of Sir Isaac Newton, Science has proceeded through the publication of peer-reviewed papers. Peer-review means a thorough reading, commentary and even challenge before publication by "peers", that is, other PhD's and professors. This paper was thoroughly peer-reviewed with several pages of tough comments that required of our team MONTHS of additional experiments and studies. It was the toughest peer-review I've ever had, including THREE papers for which I was first author in NATURE. (Please note that Prof. Harrit is first author on this paper.) We sought an established journal that would allow us a LONG paper (this paper is 25 pages long) with MANY COLOR IMAGES AND GRAPHS. Such a scientific journal is not easy to find. Page charges are common for scientific journals these days, and are typically paid by the University of the first or second author (as is the case with this paper) or by an external grant.
A peer-reviewed journal is also called a "refereed" journal. Peer-reviewers are almost always anonymous for scientific publications like this -- that is standard in the scientific world. While authors commonly recommend potential peer-reviewers, editors choose the referees and usually pick at least one or two reviewers that the authors did NOT mention -- and that is almost certainly the case with this paper (based on commentary we received from the reviewers). In the end, all the reviewers -- who were selected by the editor(s) -- approved publication. Thus, the paper was subjected to peer review by the editor or editors, and it passed the peer-review process.
Debunkers may raise all sorts of objections on forums, such as "Oh, it's just paint" or "the aluminum is bound up in kaolin." We have answered those questions in the paper, and shown them to be nonsense, but you have to read to find the answers. I may also provide answers here and in emails, often quoting from the paper to show that the answers are already in it.
Here's what you need to know (especially if you are not a scientist): UNLESS AN OBJECTOR ACTUALLY PUBLISHES HIS OR HER OBJECTION IN A PEER-REVIEWED ESTABLISHED JOURNAL (yes that would include Bentham Scientific journals), THEN THE OBJECTION IS NOT CONSIDERED SERIOUS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT NON-PUBLISHED OBJECTIONS EITHER.
So how do you, as a non-scientist, discern whether the arguments are valid or not? You should first ask, "is the objection PUBLISHED in an ESTABLISHED PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL?" If not, you can and should say -- "I will wait to see this formally published in a refereed scientific journal. Until then, the published peer-reviewed work by Harrit et al. stands. "
BTW, there also has been no PUBLISHED REFEREED paper yet that counters either the "Fourteen Points" paper or the "Environmental Anomalies" papers we published last year.
IF it is so easy to publish in Bentham Scientific journals, or if these are "vanity publications" (note: there is no factual basis for these charges) -- then why don't the objectors write up their objections and get them peer-reviewed and published?? The fact is, it is not easy, as serious objectors will find out.
Our results have passed the gauntlet of peer-review (including in this case, review at BYU consistent with the fact that there are two authors from BYU).
We say that this paper has the "imprimatur of peer-review". That is a significant breakthrough. You cannot say that of big-foot or Elvis sightings... We are now in a different world from such things, the world of the published scientific community. CAN YOU APPRECIATE THE DIFFERENCE? I hope so. And this is what has our opponents so worried IMO...
What you need to know about "Peer-review" | 911Blogger.com
Last edited:
- Mar 1, 2008
- 49,931
- 17,316
- 2,250
www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
I wonder why the Popular Mechanics stories bother the thruthers so much?
Because it dismantles their arguments.
hardly..its because it is trash ...we have researched it well with critical thinking and logic...unlike you
exactly.the only ones on mind altering drugs are you Bush dupes Toro.I proved with my fourth post on page one -the long one,how it is a croak of shit.You always run off with your tail between your legs anytime i ask you to debunk my 47 canada wants the truth videos since we both know you CANT debunk them.
- Mar 1, 2008
- 49,931
- 17,316
- 2,250
With all the flaws of our government, all the wrongs they commit, all the rights they are taking away .... and you focus on this ...
Hell, if you want real reasons to hate the government I can make a short list easily, and not one requires a conspiracy theory or fantasy evidence.
Like the conspiracy theory with fantasy evidence the 9/11 commission and popular mechanics came up with that 19 muslim highjackers and bin laden were behind the attacks and that the planes and fire caused the collapse of the towers?
and sure, for someone on drugs and in denial his facts would sound like x file facts.LOl.
Last edited:
- Mar 1, 2008
- 49,931
- 17,316
- 2,250
all bunk...not even worth addressing chalk full of popular mechanics catch phrases...in contradiction with NIST...you have read nothing except popular mechanics ...you have not read the 911 commission report or the NIST report.. you .ignore free fall speed ..molten metal,,,the NIST directors doubts over his own work...amateur...pfttt
How did I know that this is the kind of response I would get?
most likely because you know the bullshit your talking...and its true how uniformed you are so there is not much else you can say
exactly.another Bush dupe here obviously in denial.
Last edited:
When you make a reasonable poll I will participate.
- Mar 1, 2008
- 49,931
- 17,316
- 2,250
of course the Bush dupes will ignore this but according to 8 flight controllers at FAA,the air trafiic controllers tape recordings of the high jackings that took place were destroyed by a supervisor.They said he took it out and crushed it in his hand and scattered the tapes into pieces into different trashcans.yet the guy did not go to jail,yeah right,no inside job.Lol.lets see you guys do something like that and see if you dont go to jail for something major like that.LOL.how much more foolish do you Bush dupes want to make yourselfs look like by living in denial that it was an inside job? LOL
Hint: Insulting and labeling people will not convince them of anything, you "foolish dupe".of course the Bush dupes will ignore this but according to 8 flight controllers at FAA,the air trafiic controllers tape recordings of the high jackings that took place were destroyed by a supervisor.They said he took it out and crushed it in his hand and scattered the tapes into pieces into different trashcans.yet the guy did not go to jail,yeah right,no inside job.Lol.lets see you guys do something like that and see if you dont go to jail for something major like that.LOL.how much more foolish do you Bush dupes want to make yourselfs look like by living in denial that it was an inside job? LOL
Because it dismantles their arguments.
hardly..its because it is trash ...we have researched it well with critical thinking and logic...unlike you
exactly.the only ones on mind altering drugs are you Bush dupes Toro.I proved with my fourth post on page one -the long one,how it is a croak of shit.You always run off with your tail between your legs anytime i ask you to debunk my 47 canada wants the truth videos since we both know you CANT debunk them.
A "croak" of shit!
I have debunked every single one of your blessed 47 videos with my 3,000+ videos you refuse to watch.
- Mar 1, 2008
- 49,931
- 17,316
- 2,250
hardly..its because it is trash ...we have researched it well with critical thinking and logic...unlike you
exactly.the only ones on mind altering drugs are you Bush dupes Toro.I proved with my fourth post on page one -the long one,how it is a croak of shit.You always run off with your tail between your legs anytime i ask you to debunk my 47 canada wants the truth videos since we both know you CANT debunk them.
A "croak" of shit!
I have debunked every single one of your blessed 47 videos with my 3,000+ videos you refuse to watch.
Lies as usual.yeah I realised I mispelled that later on but never got around to fixing it.
your lying as usual because I have asked you at LEAST 3 times to show me those alleged 3000 plus videos you say you have and you have only shown me "ONE" and that was the one were you made that thread with your latest and desperate pathetic attempt to prove popular mechanics and the 9/11 commission was telling the truth.why dont you just admit the truth that we both know which is you DONT have 3000 plus videos.
Popular Mechanics rocks, and you know it.
Terral
Terral Corp CEO
- Mar 4, 2009
- 2,493
- 92
- 83
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #75
Hi C-101:
You really want to stand and defend the Official Cover Stories for the 9/11 attacks! Great! :0)
C-101’s picture link
This is a picture of the EMPTY HOLE that includes no crashed 100-ton Jetliner. :0) Thank you for helping to make ‘my’ case that Flight 93 Never Crashed here (my thread).
No. Your job is to prove that Flight 93 crashed into this little empty hole:
Use all of the eyewitnesses you wish, but we are still looking at pictures of AN EMPTY HOLE.
First of all, hotshot, you are hotlinking pictures from other websites, which is a no-no. If you are not going to take a few minutes to download and upload pics to your own Photobucket account, then have the common courtesy of providing ‘links’ (pic) to your photographs.
Your little picture shows one little piece of planted evidence, which means you are short about 100-tons in proving that Flight 93 crashed into this little empty hole. :0)
Now C-101 is showing us more ‘planted’ evidence where he is willing to say this little piece of rusty engine, found UNDER the growing grass, is part of a real 6-ton Rolls-Royce Engine like this:
Note that his little piece of engine can fit inside the back of one pickup truck ‘and’ just happens to fit inside the backhoe bucket that ‘planted’ the little engine part in the first place.
You are still missing the massive wing sections and two 6-ton Rolls-Royce Engines (like this) and 60 tons of high-grade titanium frame, over 200 seats (pic), indestructible landing gear (pic) and a massive tail section that stands almost 50 feet tall (pic). This guy is passing off a few pounds of planted rusty metal for a missing 100-ton Jetliner and we are supposed to be impressed. :0)
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKhBzAh_eeA[/ame]
Maybe watching this Military/Aviation Expert Testimony Video will help. :0)
BTW, pasting a ton of Pentagon pictures without any commentary only works to support ‘my’ hypothesis that AA77 Never Crashed At The Pentagon. Once again you are missing about 100 tons of AA77 EVIDENCE and we are reduced to talking about the little E-ring and C-ring holes. :0)
We can agree that ‘a jet’ did in fact hit the Pentagon at 9:36:27 AM (my thread), but these parts have been identified as belonging to a retrofitted A-3 Skywarrior (story and story and story) having nothing to do with any 100-ton Jetliner. This guy is posting pictures of the crashed retrofitted/painted-up A-3 Jet (pic) that crashed into the Pentagon exactly 4 minutes and 48 seconds ‘after’ the original 9:31:39 AM Missile Strike (my 9:31 thread) that injured April Gallop (link and link).
This is a picture of the generator fence where the 9:31:39 AM missile plowed through going more than the speed of sound to strike the Column Line (CL) 14 location on a 45-degree angle (pic). What Mr. C-101 is supposed to be showing us are his picture of AA77 crashed at the Pentagon. The funny part is that he is passing off pictures of downed fence as his crashed Jetliner. :0)
This is a picture of the standing E-ring wall ‘after’ the attacks and Mr. C-101 here has no impact hole to accommodate his missing fantasy 100-ton Jetliner. :0)
Bullony! We have pictures of WTC-7 in full freefall mode . . .
. . . and you can see NO fires through the unbroken windows. There is no ‘raging’ fire in WTC-7 but only your ‘raging bull.’ Hydrocarbon fires do NOT burn nearly hot enough to melt one pound of WTC-7 2800-degree (link) structural steel.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uNbKJofv3c[/ame]
Maybe you missed the video. :0)
Bullony. C-101 is just ‘talking’ without any idea of what he is even talking about. WTC-1 was 350 feet ‘away’ (pic) from WTC-7 and also collapsed straight down into its own footprint. C-101 is trying to make a ‘Building Fires/Debris Did It’ case by running his lips, when his silly argument can only create damage on ‘one side’ of WTC-7 on the side facing the North Tower. :0) The problem with his theory is that WTC-7 also collapsed straight down ‘symmetrically’ with the center of the building leading the implosion process (pic) like any typical Controlled Demolition (AE911Truth.org). If C-101’s theory had any merit (and it DOES NOT), the WTC-7 would have leaned over towards the one ‘damaged’ side to perhaps fall over like a big tree in the forest. C-101 is willing to ignore all of the “Pull It” (my thread) lingo from Larry Silverstein and all of the massive explosions connected to this obvious Controlled Demolition:
WTC-7 The Smoking Gun Video << Good stuff. :0)
In other words, a real Demolition Supervisor (#3) need only throw diesel fuel into a 47-story skyscraper, throw in a match, and the whole thing will come tumbling down into its own footprint in 6.6 seconds. This guy has no clue at all . . . :0)
GL,
Terral
You really want to stand and defend the Official Cover Stories for the 9/11 attacks! Great! :0)
Try again.
C-101’s picture link
This is a picture of the EMPTY HOLE that includes no crashed 100-ton Jetliner. :0) Thank you for helping to make ‘my’ case that Flight 93 Never Crashed here (my thread).
Explain these eyewitness accounts.
No. Your job is to prove that Flight 93 crashed into this little empty hole:
Use all of the eyewitnesses you wish, but we are still looking at pictures of AN EMPTY HOLE.
First of all, hotshot, you are hotlinking pictures from other websites, which is a no-no. If you are not going to take a few minutes to download and upload pics to your own Photobucket account, then have the common courtesy of providing ‘links’ (pic) to your photographs.
Your little picture shows one little piece of planted evidence, which means you are short about 100-tons in proving that Flight 93 crashed into this little empty hole. :0)
Now C-101 is showing us more ‘planted’ evidence where he is willing to say this little piece of rusty engine, found UNDER the growing grass, is part of a real 6-ton Rolls-Royce Engine like this:
Note that his little piece of engine can fit inside the back of one pickup truck ‘and’ just happens to fit inside the backhoe bucket that ‘planted’ the little engine part in the first place.
You are still missing the massive wing sections and two 6-ton Rolls-Royce Engines (like this) and 60 tons of high-grade titanium frame, over 200 seats (pic), indestructible landing gear (pic) and a massive tail section that stands almost 50 feet tall (pic). This guy is passing off a few pounds of planted rusty metal for a missing 100-ton Jetliner and we are supposed to be impressed. :0)
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKhBzAh_eeA[/ame]
Maybe watching this Military/Aviation Expert Testimony Video will help. :0)
BTW, pasting a ton of Pentagon pictures without any commentary only works to support ‘my’ hypothesis that AA77 Never Crashed At The Pentagon. Once again you are missing about 100 tons of AA77 EVIDENCE and we are reduced to talking about the little E-ring and C-ring holes. :0)
We can agree that ‘a jet’ did in fact hit the Pentagon at 9:36:27 AM (my thread), but these parts have been identified as belonging to a retrofitted A-3 Skywarrior (story and story and story) having nothing to do with any 100-ton Jetliner. This guy is posting pictures of the crashed retrofitted/painted-up A-3 Jet (pic) that crashed into the Pentagon exactly 4 minutes and 48 seconds ‘after’ the original 9:31:39 AM Missile Strike (my 9:31 thread) that injured April Gallop (link and link).
This is a picture of the generator fence where the 9:31:39 AM missile plowed through going more than the speed of sound to strike the Column Line (CL) 14 location on a 45-degree angle (pic). What Mr. C-101 is supposed to be showing us are his picture of AA77 crashed at the Pentagon. The funny part is that he is passing off pictures of downed fence as his crashed Jetliner. :0)
This is a picture of the standing E-ring wall ‘after’ the attacks and Mr. C-101 here has no impact hole to accommodate his missing fantasy 100-ton Jetliner. :0)
Bullony! We have pictures of WTC-7 in full freefall mode . . .
. . . and you can see NO fires through the unbroken windows. There is no ‘raging’ fire in WTC-7 but only your ‘raging bull.’ Hydrocarbon fires do NOT burn nearly hot enough to melt one pound of WTC-7 2800-degree (link) structural steel.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uNbKJofv3c[/ame]
Maybe you missed the video. :0)
Fuel-fed fires along with as much as 25% structural damage from the collapse of WTC1 combined with the fact that WTC7 support columns were unusually stressed through poor design is plenty cause for the tower to collapse.
Bullony. C-101 is just ‘talking’ without any idea of what he is even talking about. WTC-1 was 350 feet ‘away’ (pic) from WTC-7 and also collapsed straight down into its own footprint. C-101 is trying to make a ‘Building Fires/Debris Did It’ case by running his lips, when his silly argument can only create damage on ‘one side’ of WTC-7 on the side facing the North Tower. :0) The problem with his theory is that WTC-7 also collapsed straight down ‘symmetrically’ with the center of the building leading the implosion process (pic) like any typical Controlled Demolition (AE911Truth.org). If C-101’s theory had any merit (and it DOES NOT), the WTC-7 would have leaned over towards the one ‘damaged’ side to perhaps fall over like a big tree in the forest. C-101 is willing to ignore all of the “Pull It” (my thread) lingo from Larry Silverstein and all of the massive explosions connected to this obvious Controlled Demolition:
WTC-7 The Smoking Gun Video << Good stuff. :0)
If even one column fails the rest of the structure will systematically crash due to the unfortunate design of the building.
In other words, a real Demolition Supervisor (#3) need only throw diesel fuel into a 47-story skyscraper, throw in a match, and the whole thing will come tumbling down into its own footprint in 6.6 seconds. This guy has no clue at all . . . :0)
GL,
Terral
Last edited:
This is a picture of the EMPTY HOLE that includes no crashed 100-ton Jetliner. :0) Thank you for helping to make ‘my’ case that Flight 93 Never Crashed here
Why are you expecting a jet liner to be intact? This was not your typical jet skidding into the ground.
Why else would I post eyewitness accounts? To demonstrate that this is a very unusual plane crash that is on whole unprecendented.
The pictures illustrate that:
A) There is a massive debris field everywhere, indicating that yes, a jet liner crashed here. (Which should have been obvious in the first place.)
B) The accounts of multiple witnesses are correct. The plane did not merely skid on the ground, but rather it did two things.
1) It crashed nose down and lost a considerable amount of its airframe including an engine which went deep into the forest ahead of it.
2) The plane blew up before it hit the ground or after it hit the ground.
Point two is supported by the picture of a mushroom cloud dissipating over the crash site. Whether it blew up before impact or afterwards is unknown but the pictures show that the plane did indeed blow up.
Some people have speculated based on cell phone calls that the terrorists may have had a bomb on board.
Use all of the eyewitnesses you wish, but we are still looking at pictures of AN EMPTY HOLE.
You must be delusional or blind because there is debris EVERYWHERE and if you were actually looking for the truth it would not be hard to find more pictures of the crash site with an abundant amount of debris.
First of all, hotshot, you are hotlinking pictures from other websites, which is a no-no. If you are not going to take a few minutes to download and upload pics to your own to your photographs.
Do you think I care what you consider to be appropriate or inappropriate?
No, I care about you responding to the evidence presented and debunking it if you can.
Your little picture shows one little piece of planted evidence, which means you are short about 100-tons in proving that Flight 93 crashed into this little empty hole.
Show me the evidence that this was planted.
Now C-101 is showing us more ‘planted’ evidence where he is willing to say this little piece of rusty engine, found UNDER the growing grass, is part of a real 6-ton Rolls-Royce Engine like this:
1) What evidence is there that this is planted evidence?
2) What grass? All I see is dirt.
3) The engine is only partially dug up.
4) You have serious problems if you think that a engine is going to stay in one piece after a crash like that.
Also, it is important to note that 95% of the Flight 93 debris was recovered.
Note that his little piece of engine can fit inside the back of one pickup truck ‘and’ just happens to fit inside the backhoe bucket that ‘planted’ the little engine part in the first place.
Well what do you know. You hit the nail on the head right there. It is in fact a "little piece of engine". Thanks for proving my previous point. (Point 4)
You are still missing the massive wing sections and two 6-ton Rolls-Royce Engines and 60 tons of high-grade titanium frame, over 200 seats , indestructible landing gear (pic) and a massive tail section that stands almost 50 feet tall . This guy is passing off a few pounds of planted rusty metal for a missing 100-ton Jetliner and we are supposed to be impressed. :0)
Look above. The plane blew up, disintegrated, and crash investigators reported that countless pieces of debris were present with very few big pieces.
Maybe watching this Military/Aviation Expert Testimony Video will help. :0)
Yes, that did help my argument in my original response.
Thanks for posting a video that lies right away about there being no plane at the Pentagon.
BTW, pasting a ton of Pentagon pictures without any commentary only works to support ‘my’ hypothesis that AA77 Never Crashed At The Pentagon. Once again you are missing about 100 tons of AA77 EVIDENCE and we are reduced to talking about the little E-ring and C-ring holes.
Do you need professional help? Let me help you.
If a plane:
>>>>>>
Hits a building:
>>>>> [ ]
The plane is not going to stay intact.
In fact, it is going to BLOW UP.
Now what happens when a plane blows up?
It breaks apart into MILLIONS of pieces and those pieces often disintegrate in the instant heat of the blast and ensuing fire.
So, no, the plane is not going to stay in one piece like some cartoon but rather burst apart.
Amazing, is it not?
We can agree that ‘a jet’ did in fact hit the Pentagon.
Your "retrofit" picture looks so comical. There are no A-3 engines on your "retrofit", the wings are different, and even the airframe is different especially on the belly.
And what evidence is there that there even was a second plane hit later in the day?
First responders were on the scene in no time.
You would think that someone would notice a separate small plane hitting the Pentagon but I guess not.
More to come later, I'm busy right now.
Edit: More info. updated
This is a picture of the generator fence where the 9:31:39 AM missile plowed through going more than the speed of sound to strike the Column Line (CL) 14 location on a 45-degree angle (pic). What Mr. C-101 is supposed to be showing us are his picture of AA77 crashed at the Pentagon. The funny part is that he is passing off pictures of downed fence as his crashed Jetliner. :0)
The plane's wing ripped the fence apart and you can see from a bird's eye view that the generator was in fact moved by the wing.
Hint: A missile does not move a generator without blowing up prematurely.
This is a picture of the standing E-ring wall ‘after’ the attacks and Mr. C-101 here has no impact hole to accommodate his missing fantasy 100-ton Jetliner.
You select the worst photos for analyzing the crash. (And I have a good suspicion as to why.)
This is much better.
Did you put your glasses on? Good.
Now, if you will kindly direct your eyes to the first floor you will notice a gaping hole that is more than large enough for a 757.
The plane hit the first floor and this is supported by the break out on the opposite side of the ring which is on ground level.
Bullony! We have pictures of WTC-7 in full freefall mode . . .
and you can see NO fires through the unbroken windows. There is no ‘raging’ fire in WTC-7 but only your ‘raging bull.’ Hydrocarbon fires do NOT burn nearly hot enough to melt one pound of WTC-7 2800-degree (link) structural steel.
That's because the fires are on the opposite side of building, genius. You know, where WTC 1 collapsed onto WTC 7?
I still do not understand why you think steel has to melt in order for a building to fall.
Steel only has to hit 1000 degrees Fahrenheit for 50% of its integrity to be compromised. At 1800 degrees, steel strength is at only 10%. The diesel fed fires are calculated to be around 2000 degrees Fahrenheit.
The building rubble alone in the aftermath was about 1300 degrees Fahrenheit.
Bullony. C-101 is just ‘talking’ without any idea of what he is even talking about. WTC-1 was 350 feet ‘away’ (pic) from WTC-7 and also collapsed straight down into its own footprint. C-101 is trying to make a ‘Building Fires/Debris Did It’ case by running his lips, when his silly argument can only create damage on ‘one side’ of WTC-7 on the side facing the North Tower. :0) The problem with his theory is that WTC-7 also collapsed straight down ‘symmetrically’ with the center of the building leading the implosion process (pic) like any typical Controlled Demolition (AE911Truth.org). If C-101’s theory had any merit (and it DOES NOT), the WTC-7 would have leaned over towards the one ‘damaged’ side to perhaps fall over like a big tree in the forest. C-101 is willing to ignore all of the “Pull It” (my thread) lingo from Larry Silverstein and all of the massive explosions connected to this obvious Controlled Demolition:
It did not collapse in its own footprint.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRkQ7Tr9Q3o&feature=related[/ame]
I'm also concerned that you do not know what "symmetric" means. An object split in two equal, identical parts is symmetric. The fault line is nowhere near symmetric.
As for the "pull it" comment:
Controlled demolition experts reject the notion that "pull it" is a term used in building implosions.
The only context that "pull" has been used in building demolition is for small buildings (a few stories tall), where construction crews attach long cables to pre-weaken a structure and literally pull it down with bulldozers and other equipment.
"Pull" is also used by firefighters in reference to "pulling firefighters out of a building", because the situation is too dangerous. It is in this context that Silverstein used the term "pull it".
His spokesperson, Dara McQuillan, said that by "it", Silverstein was referring to the contigent of firefighters in WTC 7.
FDNY interviews available on the New York Times website also shed light on the use of "pull" in firefighting on 9/11, and help address the question of whether firefighters were in WTC 7 in the afternoon.
FDNY Captain Ray Goldback:
"I'm going to guess it was after 3:00...we walked all the way back down to Vesey Street. There was a big discussion going on at that point about pulling all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center. Chief Nigro didn't feel it was worth taking the slightest chance of somebody else getting injured. So at that point we made a decision to take all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center because there was a potential for collapse." [1]
Firefighter Richard Banaciski was in the Verizon Building, adjacent to WTC7.
“ Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street. [2]
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/7_World_Trade_Center
If you want to know what a real controlled implosion looks like and sounds like, watch this.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U4erFzhC-U&feature=related[/ame]
In other words, a real Demolition Supervisor (#3) need only throw diesel fuel into a 47-story skyscraper, throw in a match, and the whole thing will come tumbling down into its own footprint in 6.6 seconds. This guy has no clue at all . . . :0)
Actually, WTC 7 collapsed in 8-9 seconds or 13 seconds if you include the Penthouse collapse.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6GMddY-lQ[/ame]
or
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUkvnfV606w&NR=1[/ame]
Last edited:
eots
no fly list
this man knows more than you
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9CNToaP2Ew[/ame]
Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, 1981 - 1984. Also commanded the U.S. Army’s Electronic Research and Development Command and the U.S. Army’s Intelligence School and Center. Former head of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence. 32-year Army career.
Member, Military Intelligence Hall of Fame.
Video 7/11/06: "One of my experiences in the Army was being in charge of the Army’s Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence during the Cold War. I measured pieces of Soviet equipment from photographs. It was my job. I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, ‘The plane does not fit in that hole’. So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What's going on?" http://www.und
Editor's note: For more information on the impact at the Pentagon, see Colonel Nelson, Commander Muga, Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski, Lt. Col. Latas, Major Rokke, Capt. Wittenberg, Capt. Davis, Barbara Honegger, April Gallop, Colonel Bunel, and Steve DeChiaro.
http://patriotsquestion911.com/
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9CNToaP2Ew[/ame]
Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, 1981 - 1984. Also commanded the U.S. Army’s Electronic Research and Development Command and the U.S. Army’s Intelligence School and Center. Former head of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence. 32-year Army career.
Member, Military Intelligence Hall of Fame.
Video 7/11/06: "One of my experiences in the Army was being in charge of the Army’s Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence during the Cold War. I measured pieces of Soviet equipment from photographs. It was my job. I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, ‘The plane does not fit in that hole’. So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What's going on?" http://www.und
Editor's note: For more information on the impact at the Pentagon, see Colonel Nelson, Commander Muga, Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski, Lt. Col. Latas, Major Rokke, Capt. Wittenberg, Capt. Davis, Barbara Honegger, April Gallop, Colonel Bunel, and Steve DeChiaro.
http://patriotsquestion911.com/
Last edited:
eots
no fly list
Rudy Giuliani Angry at Dutch Jury for Exonerating Osama bin Laden
Jurriaan Maessen
April 17, 2009
In a FOXNews.com story on a Dutch television jury’s verdict of not guilty regarding Osama bin Laden’s alleged involvement in the attacks of September 11 2001, former mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani expresses outrage over the verdict.
Lamenting the fact that television programs are free to air doubt, Rudy Giuliani obviously prefers that the media would do nothing but spout the official version of 911.
As the Hollywood Reporter reported on April 9, a television jury in the Netherlands has ‘ruled there was no proof Bin Laden was the mastermind behind the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001.’ In the television program defense attorney Gerard Spong casts doubt on Bin Laden’s involvement in the planning of the attacks. After a short deliberation, the jury came out and acknowledged there is no real evidence linking the supposed Al-Qaida mastermind to the tragic events of September 11. Spong’s main argument in his sharp and clever plea is the extreme doubtfulness of the ‘admission’ given by someone who vaguely resembles the bearded boogieman.
‘It’s such a bizarre and irrational ruling’, Giuliani said, ‘that I don’t think it’ll have any weight with anyone, other than to fuel conspiracy theories. The clear damage it does is that it gives people who want to seize on irrational theories something else to talk about.’
By casting doubt on the Bin Laden tapes as well as pointing to the fact that 911 is not mentioned in Bin Laden’s rap sheet on the FBI’s most wanted list, Spong apparently forces the former mayor of New York further in the defensive. Giuliani tells FOXNews.com:
‘The message is a very disturbing one. It’s a very irrational decision based on all the evidence that’s been amassed by the 9/11 Commission that has concluded (Bin Laden) was the instigator and mastermind of the attacks. It’s contradictory
Rudy Giuliani Angry at Dutch Jury for Exonerating Osama bin Laden
Jurriaan Maessen
April 17, 2009
In a FOXNews.com story on a Dutch television jury’s verdict of not guilty regarding Osama bin Laden’s alleged involvement in the attacks of September 11 2001, former mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani expresses outrage over the verdict.
Lamenting the fact that television programs are free to air doubt, Rudy Giuliani obviously prefers that the media would do nothing but spout the official version of 911.
As the Hollywood Reporter reported on April 9, a television jury in the Netherlands has ‘ruled there was no proof Bin Laden was the mastermind behind the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001.’ In the television program defense attorney Gerard Spong casts doubt on Bin Laden’s involvement in the planning of the attacks. After a short deliberation, the jury came out and acknowledged there is no real evidence linking the supposed Al-Qaida mastermind to the tragic events of September 11. Spong’s main argument in his sharp and clever plea is the extreme doubtfulness of the ‘admission’ given by someone who vaguely resembles the bearded boogieman.
‘It’s such a bizarre and irrational ruling’, Giuliani said, ‘that I don’t think it’ll have any weight with anyone, other than to fuel conspiracy theories. The clear damage it does is that it gives people who want to seize on irrational theories something else to talk about.’
By casting doubt on the Bin Laden tapes as well as pointing to the fact that 911 is not mentioned in Bin Laden’s rap sheet on the FBI’s most wanted list, Spong apparently forces the former mayor of New York further in the defensive. Giuliani tells FOXNews.com:
‘The message is a very disturbing one. It’s a very irrational decision based on all the evidence that’s been amassed by the 9/11 Commission that has concluded (Bin Laden) was the instigator and mastermind of the attacks. It’s contradictory
Rudy Giuliani Angry at Dutch Jury for Exonerating Osama bin Laden
Terral
Terral Corp CEO
- Mar 4, 2009
- 2,493
- 92
- 83
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #79
Hi C-101:
Let us all be absolutely sure of one thing: Those among you coming out here every damn day to run diversion for the Official Cover Story LIES are just as guilty as the Inside-job Bad Guys who murdered innocent Americans in the first place. You come out here to try and convince these readers that 100-ton Jetliners crashed where no such thing ever happened, even though you have NO EVIDENCE to support anything at all.
This guy is supposed to be showing your photographs of a crashed 100-ton Jetliner, but instead he uses diversionary trickery by asking stupid rhetorical questions!
This is the Official Gov’t Evidence of THE EMPTY HOLE and this C-101 Gov’t Cover Story Crony can keep on asking his silly questions. :0)
Questions, questions and more silly/stupid/ignorant questions. You have ‘no physical evidence’ to prove a real 100-ton Jetliner crashed in the EMPTY HOLE in the EMPTY Shanksville field, so you quote other people without one clue. :0)
The pictures all show AN EMPTY HOLE:
Say this with me really show this time: “All of the pictures taken outside Shanksville show the same EMPTY HOLE.”
This is a close-up shot of THE EMPTY HOLE that shows grass growing on all the inclines. This little empty hole (heh) is where C-101 is trying to say a real 100-ton Jetliner crashed into the ground like this (pic). This C-101 guy is trying to ‘divide’ the reading audience by asking these stupid questions using ‘he-said, she-said’ nonsense, because ALL of the pictures show the same little EMPTY HOLE.
Go ahead and ask some more stupid questions. :0)
There is no debris field in this empty Shanksville field!!!
Look at the yellow ‘Do Not Cross’ Ribbon stretched across the crime scene just a few feet away from THE EMPTY HOLE behind the supervisor standing there with his hands crossed behind his back. That yellow tape represents the boundary between our EMPTY HOLE and NOTHING outside the hole but more growing grass. Go through and look at each so-called crash site worker to realize that practically every back is turned to the EMPTY HOLE, because there is nothing resembling a real 100-ton crashed Jetliner anywhere in this empty field. Some of you have been DUPED by Disinformation Operatives like C-101 here coming out to this fine USMB Board to boldly claim that 100-ton Jetliners crashed in EMPTY HOLES, when nothing like that ever happened at all. The Official Cover Story Grand Delusion is perpetuated by people like C-101, because some people have ‘an agenda’ to convince you of 911LIES with no basis in reality whatsoever. The question then concerns WHY some people are helping a rogue element inside our own U.S. Gov’t to convince people that 100-ton Jetliners crashed into empty fields. :0)
Stop playing these readers as your FOOLS with nonsense about bouncing engines, when you are missing 100 tons of evidence that any Jetliner crashed here. Because C-101 is only going to keep LYING to your faces:
Feast your eyes once again upon THE EMPTY HOLE in the EMPTY FIELD that includes no 60-ton Titanium frame, no 6-ton Rolls-Royce Engines, no massive wing sections, no 200 seats, no cargo, no indestructible landing gear, no massive tail section standing almost 50 feet tall above the tarmac, because Fight 93 NEVER CRASHED HERE (my thread).
Now this guy is insulting our collective intelligence by insisting that a 100-ton Jetliner ‘blew up’ (heh) “before it hit the ground OR after it hit the ground,” because he has no evidence that a real 100-ton Jetliner ever crashed into this little EMPTY HOLE at all. ZERO! :0) All of the Officially “Planted” evidence can fit into the back of a single pickup truck, which confirms the absolute fact that we have been looking at Inside-Job Attacks all along. C-101’s “It Blew Up!” theory defies common sense and all the laws of physics, because he must prove how the components of a real 100-ton Jetliner vaporized into thin air without leaving one ounce of ‘melted’ titanium, aluminum, steel or anything else. Now his missing 100-ton Jetliner simply ‘blew up’ (this guy has no shame), but the little empty hole still has grass growing on all the inclines ‘and’ was already in this empty field from a failed strip mining venture that went sour ‘before’ April 20, 1994 (pic).
No. The mushroom cloud was created by the Raytheon Missile that Senor Bushie, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld shot into the center of the little empty hole.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gliHOhXYFQ"]This Lady Was There[/ame]
Listen to the testimony from this lady to realize that she saw ‘a missile’ fly directly over her van and under the power lines to bank to the right and nosedive directly into the center of the little empty hole. The evidence will also show that the Pentagon case includes another Raytheon Missile that struck the Column Line 14 location at exactly 9:31:39 AM. This Susan McElwain is describing a ‘cylinder-shaped’ object between 20 and 25 feet long that is no larger than her van and no 100-ton Jetliner that Mr. C-101 here wants you to believe simply ‘blew up.’ :0)
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Some people like C-101 have speculated about a real 100-ton Jetliner blowing up too, but the eyewitness reports discredit that kind of nonsense; because people like Susan McElwain WERE THERE ‘and’ . . .
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc[/ame]
. . . the News Reports from the Empty Field include a 20-feet by 10 to 15-feet EMPTY HOLE. We are talking about a ‘crater in the ground,’ because the missile went BOOM. :0)
This is very funny coming from a guy declaring that a real 100-ton Jetliner ‘blew up’ to disappear into thin air. :0)
Questions, questions and more stupid questions! You are here to defend Senor Bushie’s Official Cover Story without regard to the absolute fact that all the pictures show AN EMPTY HOLE! The News Reporter just said that there were no pieces larger than a phonebook, but then over in the trees somewhere the Gov’t finds a few little pieces that all combined can fit into the back of one pickup truck. Note that we have no burns on these ‘planted’ parts, but the remainder of the 100-ton Jetliner is missing. :0)
Again, this is the size of your missing 100-ton Jetliner in comparison to the size of your little EMPTY HOLE. And no, I do not think you care about telling ‘the’ 911Truth about the little EMPTY HOLE, because you are here to stand condemned with Senor Bushie, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, the Wargame NORAD Gang, the corrupt FBI and CIA and NSA and all of their subordinate cartoon character agencies all telling the same 911LIES part of your DoD Counterintelligence/Disinformation Campaign that only makes you look like FOOLS.
Now we are looking at more ‘debunking’ (heh) stupidity from a guy without a case for a real 100-ton Jetliner crashing anywhere. Maybe your silly diversionary bait-and-switch mind tricks will work on some of these readers, but I can assure you with 100 percent assurance that none of your Official Cover Story NONSENSE will work on me. :0)
Again? Okie! (Click here). The little hole is already in this empty field when this US Geological Survey Photograph was taken on April 20, 1994, so Senor Bushie and his Inside-job Gang decided to detonate the payload of a Raytheon Missile in the middle of the hole to simulate ‘wings’ of a crashed Jetliner that ‘you say’ blew up. :0)
There is no evidence of any Jetliner debris in or around the little empty hole, but ‘your’ planted evidence showed up over in the trees. Okay hotshot, so explain why there is no debris ‘between’ the empty hole and your planted evidence that is not even burned. You are still missing 100 Tons of evidence. :0)
Asking the same stupid questions a thousand times is not going to make a case for a real 100-ton Jetliner crashing into this empty hole. :0)
C-101 needs to remove those rose-colored glasses that force him into seeing crashed 100-ton Jetliners where only AN EMPTY HOLE is present in the photographs. He is talking about ‘dirt,’ because of the absence of any crashed 100-ton Jetliner. :0)
That little piece of ‘planted’ rusty evidence (pic) has nothing to do with any crashed 100-ton Jetliner. Note how the little piece of planted evidence just happens to fit inside the backhoe bucket ‘and’ how all of the planted evidence can easily fit inside the bed of a single pickup truck ‘and’ was found a some distance ‘away’ from the little empty hole. Just one of the big problems facing this Gov’t Cover Story Crony is that the empty hole still has the grass growing on all the inclines (pic), which means this Official Gov’t Evidence was ‘planted’ after the fact.
This guy is trying to use one little piece of planted rusty engine to represent one of these babies:
Just forget about the fact that he is missing over 5 TONS from one of the Rolls-Royce engines ‘and’ that these Boeing 757-200 Jetliners come with a matching pair. :0) Let me guess! The remainder of the 100-ton Jetliner bounced out of this empty hole and out of this empty field to land over in the trees somewhere ‘and’ disappear into thin air; when the eyewitness above says that she saw a little white missile-like cylinder fly directly over her van and crash to explode. No sir. All of the evidence says no 100-ton Jetliner crashed here and C-101 is simply trying to tell the Official Cover Story LIE ‘and’ without much evidence for anything.
Now this guy is just being absurd and ridiculous! These massive 100-ton Jetliners have hundreds of ‘time-change parts’ (George Nelson Story) that include serial numbers recorded in log books that would allow for investigators to identify Flight 93 in about fifteen minutes after the cool-down period. And yet, the Gov’t has failed to turn over a single serial number from even one time-change part to prove the corrupt FBI is even in passion of one 9/11 Airliner. C-101 is obviously LYING right here in this post, because his first LIE is that Flight 93 ‘blew up,’ but now the Gov’t has recovered 95% of the 100-Ton Jetliner that somehow rematerialized from the little empty hole. :0)
This C-101 guy is nothing but a Loyal Bushie JOKE. :0)
GL,
[FONT="]Terral[/FONT]
Let us all be absolutely sure of one thing: Those among you coming out here every damn day to run diversion for the Official Cover Story LIES are just as guilty as the Inside-job Bad Guys who murdered innocent Americans in the first place. You come out here to try and convince these readers that 100-ton Jetliners crashed where no such thing ever happened, even though you have NO EVIDENCE to support anything at all.
This is a picture of the EMPTY HOLE that includes no crashed 100-ton Jetliner. :0) Thank you for helping to make ‘my’ case that Flight 93 Never Crashed here
Why are you expecting a jet liner to be intact? This was not your typical jet skidding into the ground.
This guy is supposed to be showing your photographs of a crashed 100-ton Jetliner, but instead he uses diversionary trickery by asking stupid rhetorical questions!
This is the Official Gov’t Evidence of THE EMPTY HOLE and this C-101 Gov’t Cover Story Crony can keep on asking his silly questions. :0)
Why else would I post eyewitness accounts?
Questions, questions and more silly/stupid/ignorant questions. You have ‘no physical evidence’ to prove a real 100-ton Jetliner crashed in the EMPTY HOLE in the EMPTY Shanksville field, so you quote other people without one clue. :0)
To demonstrate that this is a very unusual plane crash that is on whole unprecendented.
The pictures illustrate that:
The pictures all show AN EMPTY HOLE:
Say this with me really show this time: “All of the pictures taken outside Shanksville show the same EMPTY HOLE.”
This is a close-up shot of THE EMPTY HOLE that shows grass growing on all the inclines. This little empty hole (heh) is where C-101 is trying to say a real 100-ton Jetliner crashed into the ground like this (pic). This C-101 guy is trying to ‘divide’ the reading audience by asking these stupid questions using ‘he-said, she-said’ nonsense, because ALL of the pictures show the same little EMPTY HOLE.
Go ahead and ask some more stupid questions. :0)
A) There is a massive debris field everywhere, indicating that yes, a jet liner crashed here. (Which should have been obvious in the first place.)
There is no debris field in this empty Shanksville field!!!
Look at the yellow ‘Do Not Cross’ Ribbon stretched across the crime scene just a few feet away from THE EMPTY HOLE behind the supervisor standing there with his hands crossed behind his back. That yellow tape represents the boundary between our EMPTY HOLE and NOTHING outside the hole but more growing grass. Go through and look at each so-called crash site worker to realize that practically every back is turned to the EMPTY HOLE, because there is nothing resembling a real 100-ton crashed Jetliner anywhere in this empty field. Some of you have been DUPED by Disinformation Operatives like C-101 here coming out to this fine USMB Board to boldly claim that 100-ton Jetliners crashed in EMPTY HOLES, when nothing like that ever happened at all. The Official Cover Story Grand Delusion is perpetuated by people like C-101, because some people have ‘an agenda’ to convince you of 911LIES with no basis in reality whatsoever. The question then concerns WHY some people are helping a rogue element inside our own U.S. Gov’t to convince people that 100-ton Jetliners crashed into empty fields. :0)
B) The accounts of multiple witnesses are correct. The plane did not merely skid on the ground, but rather it did two things.
1) It crashed nose down and lost a considerable amount of its airframe including an engine which went deep into the forest ahead of it.
Stop playing these readers as your FOOLS with nonsense about bouncing engines, when you are missing 100 tons of evidence that any Jetliner crashed here. Because C-101 is only going to keep LYING to your faces:
Feast your eyes once again upon THE EMPTY HOLE in the EMPTY FIELD that includes no 60-ton Titanium frame, no 6-ton Rolls-Royce Engines, no massive wing sections, no 200 seats, no cargo, no indestructible landing gear, no massive tail section standing almost 50 feet tall above the tarmac, because Fight 93 NEVER CRASHED HERE (my thread).
2) The plane blew up before it hit the ground or after it hit the ground.
Now this guy is insulting our collective intelligence by insisting that a 100-ton Jetliner ‘blew up’ (heh) “before it hit the ground OR after it hit the ground,” because he has no evidence that a real 100-ton Jetliner ever crashed into this little EMPTY HOLE at all. ZERO! :0) All of the Officially “Planted” evidence can fit into the back of a single pickup truck, which confirms the absolute fact that we have been looking at Inside-Job Attacks all along. C-101’s “It Blew Up!” theory defies common sense and all the laws of physics, because he must prove how the components of a real 100-ton Jetliner vaporized into thin air without leaving one ounce of ‘melted’ titanium, aluminum, steel or anything else. Now his missing 100-ton Jetliner simply ‘blew up’ (this guy has no shame), but the little empty hole still has grass growing on all the inclines ‘and’ was already in this empty field from a failed strip mining venture that went sour ‘before’ April 20, 1994 (pic).
Point two is supported by the picture of a mushroom cloud dissipating over the crash site. Whether it blew up before impact or afterwards is unknown but the pictures show that the plane did indeed blow up.
No. The mushroom cloud was created by the Raytheon Missile that Senor Bushie, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld shot into the center of the little empty hole.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gliHOhXYFQ"]This Lady Was There[/ame]
Listen to the testimony from this lady to realize that she saw ‘a missile’ fly directly over her van and under the power lines to bank to the right and nosedive directly into the center of the little empty hole. The evidence will also show that the Pentagon case includes another Raytheon Missile that struck the Column Line 14 location at exactly 9:31:39 AM. This Susan McElwain is describing a ‘cylinder-shaped’ object between 20 and 25 feet long that is no larger than her van and no 100-ton Jetliner that Mr. C-101 here wants you to believe simply ‘blew up.’ :0)
Some people have speculated based on cell phone calls that the terrorists may have had a bomb on board.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Some people like C-101 have speculated about a real 100-ton Jetliner blowing up too, but the eyewitness reports discredit that kind of nonsense; because people like Susan McElwain WERE THERE ‘and’ . . .
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc[/ame]
. . . the News Reports from the Empty Field include a 20-feet by 10 to 15-feet EMPTY HOLE. We are talking about a ‘crater in the ground,’ because the missile went BOOM. :0)
You must be delusional or blind because there is debris EVERYWHERE and if you were actually looking for the truth it would not be hard to find more pictures of the crash site with an abundant amount of debris.
This is very funny coming from a guy declaring that a real 100-ton Jetliner ‘blew up’ to disappear into thin air. :0)
C-101 Pic#1
C-101 Pic#2
C-101 >> Do you think I care what you consider to be appropriate or inappropriate?
Questions, questions and more stupid questions! You are here to defend Senor Bushie’s Official Cover Story without regard to the absolute fact that all the pictures show AN EMPTY HOLE! The News Reporter just said that there were no pieces larger than a phonebook, but then over in the trees somewhere the Gov’t finds a few little pieces that all combined can fit into the back of one pickup truck. Note that we have no burns on these ‘planted’ parts, but the remainder of the 100-ton Jetliner is missing. :0)
Again, this is the size of your missing 100-ton Jetliner in comparison to the size of your little EMPTY HOLE. And no, I do not think you care about telling ‘the’ 911Truth about the little EMPTY HOLE, because you are here to stand condemned with Senor Bushie, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, the Wargame NORAD Gang, the corrupt FBI and CIA and NSA and all of their subordinate cartoon character agencies all telling the same 911LIES part of your DoD Counterintelligence/Disinformation Campaign that only makes you look like FOOLS.
No, I care about you responding to the evidence presented and debunking it if you can.
Now we are looking at more ‘debunking’ (heh) stupidity from a guy without a case for a real 100-ton Jetliner crashing anywhere. Maybe your silly diversionary bait-and-switch mind tricks will work on some of these readers, but I can assure you with 100 percent assurance that none of your Official Cover Story NONSENSE will work on me. :0)
Show me the evidence that this was planted.
Again? Okie! (Click here). The little hole is already in this empty field when this US Geological Survey Photograph was taken on April 20, 1994, so Senor Bushie and his Inside-job Gang decided to detonate the payload of a Raytheon Missile in the middle of the hole to simulate ‘wings’ of a crashed Jetliner that ‘you say’ blew up. :0)
There is no evidence of any Jetliner debris in or around the little empty hole, but ‘your’ planted evidence showed up over in the trees. Okay hotshot, so explain why there is no debris ‘between’ the empty hole and your planted evidence that is not even burned. You are still missing 100 Tons of evidence. :0)
1) What evidence is there that this is planted evidence?
Asking the same stupid questions a thousand times is not going to make a case for a real 100-ton Jetliner crashing into this empty hole. :0)
2) What grass? All I see is dirt.
C-101 needs to remove those rose-colored glasses that force him into seeing crashed 100-ton Jetliners where only AN EMPTY HOLE is present in the photographs. He is talking about ‘dirt,’ because of the absence of any crashed 100-ton Jetliner. :0)
3) The engine is only partially dug up.
That little piece of ‘planted’ rusty evidence (pic) has nothing to do with any crashed 100-ton Jetliner. Note how the little piece of planted evidence just happens to fit inside the backhoe bucket ‘and’ how all of the planted evidence can easily fit inside the bed of a single pickup truck ‘and’ was found a some distance ‘away’ from the little empty hole. Just one of the big problems facing this Gov’t Cover Story Crony is that the empty hole still has the grass growing on all the inclines (pic), which means this Official Gov’t Evidence was ‘planted’ after the fact.
4) You have serious problems if you think that a engine is going to stay in one piece after a crash like that.
This guy is trying to use one little piece of planted rusty engine to represent one of these babies:
Just forget about the fact that he is missing over 5 TONS from one of the Rolls-Royce engines ‘and’ that these Boeing 757-200 Jetliners come with a matching pair. :0) Let me guess! The remainder of the 100-ton Jetliner bounced out of this empty hole and out of this empty field to land over in the trees somewhere ‘and’ disappear into thin air; when the eyewitness above says that she saw a little white missile-like cylinder fly directly over her van and crash to explode. No sir. All of the evidence says no 100-ton Jetliner crashed here and C-101 is simply trying to tell the Official Cover Story LIE ‘and’ without much evidence for anything.
Also, it is important to note that 95% of the Flight 93 debris was recovered.
Now this guy is just being absurd and ridiculous! These massive 100-ton Jetliners have hundreds of ‘time-change parts’ (George Nelson Story) that include serial numbers recorded in log books that would allow for investigators to identify Flight 93 in about fifteen minutes after the cool-down period. And yet, the Gov’t has failed to turn over a single serial number from even one time-change part to prove the corrupt FBI is even in passion of one 9/11 Airliner. C-101 is obviously LYING right here in this post, because his first LIE is that Flight 93 ‘blew up,’ but now the Gov’t has recovered 95% of the 100-Ton Jetliner that somehow rematerialized from the little empty hole. :0)
This C-101 guy is nothing but a Loyal Bushie JOKE. :0)
GL,
[FONT="]Terral[/FONT]
Last edited:
Terral
Terral Corp CEO
- Mar 4, 2009
- 2,493
- 92
- 83
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #80
Hi C-101:
C-101 has no evidence that a real 100-ton Jetliner crashed anywhere, so his Jetliner ‘blew up’ and ‘disintegrated’ into thin air to leave only the little empty hole. :0)
A DoD Jet ‘did’ hit the Pentagon at 9:36:27 AM (my thread), for which we have some debris (pic), but that has nothing to do with AA77 or any crashed 100-ton JETLINER.
No. What I need is for C-101 to begin producing pictures of a crashed 100-Ton Jetliner that ‘you say’ crashed . . .
. . . into this standing E-ring Wall! Let me take a wild guess! This C-101 guy is going to say that the 100-Ton Jetliner vaporized into thin air either ‘before’ or ‘after’ impact. :0) If you remember from the Fox News Clip above, then we are looking at a 20-feet diameter empty hole for the Shanksville Case ‘and’ now we are looking at another 18-feet 3-inch empty hole at the Pentagon!
Note the undamaged green SUV that C-101’s fantasy 100-ton Jetliner missed ‘and’ never even broke one window on the third floor (damage schematic pic). The two second-story windows to the left of the little impact hole are also unbroken, but this C-101 guy wants you to believe that a real 100-ton Jetliner did one of these numbers (pic) through this same E-ring wall going a whopping 530 miles per hour. :0)
Note how C-101’s 100-ton Jetliners have a habit of blowing up and vaporizing into thin air, but only on 9/11 for these related Inside-job attacks. :0)
Yeah. Right! I supposed all of that disintegration took place ‘before’ your 100-ton Jetliner ever hit the Pentagon. :0) For your information, April Gallop and her son were sitting behind Column Line #6 (pic and pic = my thread), which is in the direct path of the port-side wing (pic) and she evacuated the building through the impact hole! Terry Cohen was sitting in a meeting inside one of those construction trailers just 100 feet from the impact hole. She grabbed her hardhat and ran to the impact hole within mere seconds ‘and’ reported “Just Smoke” (News Video). There was no massive fire that you are LYING about and no ‘intense heat’ that vaporized any 100-ton Jetliner . . .
. . . which we know by the fact that the black plastic remained unburned just outside the Pentagon. You see fire ‘now’ in this picture, because the DoD A-3 Jet returned exactly 4 minutes and 48 seconds ‘later’ to crash at this very same location in a second failed attempt to bring the E-ring roof down and simulate a real Jetliner crash.
Listen here: If anybody here want to believe this guy’s Official Cover Story NONSENSE, then go right ahead. All this guy can do is come out to this fine USMB Conspiracy Theories Board and tell Loyal Bushie LIES that have no basis in reality whatsoever.
GL,
Terral
Look above. The plane blew up, disintegrated, and crash investigators reported that countless pieces of debris were present with very few big pieces.
C-101 has no evidence that a real 100-ton Jetliner crashed anywhere, so his Jetliner ‘blew up’ and ‘disintegrated’ into thin air to leave only the little empty hole. :0)
Thanks for posting a video that lies right away about there being no plane at the Pentagon.
A DoD Jet ‘did’ hit the Pentagon at 9:36:27 AM (my thread), for which we have some debris (pic), but that has nothing to do with AA77 or any crashed 100-ton JETLINER.
Do you need professional help? Let me help you.
No. What I need is for C-101 to begin producing pictures of a crashed 100-Ton Jetliner that ‘you say’ crashed . . .
. . . into this standing E-ring Wall! Let me take a wild guess! This C-101 guy is going to say that the 100-Ton Jetliner vaporized into thin air either ‘before’ or ‘after’ impact. :0) If you remember from the Fox News Clip above, then we are looking at a 20-feet diameter empty hole for the Shanksville Case ‘and’ now we are looking at another 18-feet 3-inch empty hole at the Pentagon!
Note the undamaged green SUV that C-101’s fantasy 100-ton Jetliner missed ‘and’ never even broke one window on the third floor (damage schematic pic). The two second-story windows to the left of the little impact hole are also unbroken, but this C-101 guy wants you to believe that a real 100-ton Jetliner did one of these numbers (pic) through this same E-ring wall going a whopping 530 miles per hour. :0)
If a plane: >>>>>> Hits a building: >>>>> [ ] The plane is not going to stay intact. In fact, it is going to BLOW UP.
Note how C-101’s 100-ton Jetliners have a habit of blowing up and vaporizing into thin air, but only on 9/11 for these related Inside-job attacks. :0)
Now what happens when a plane blows up?
It breaks apart into MILLIONS of pieces and those pieces often disintegrate in the instant heat of the blast and ensuing fire.
Yeah. Right! I supposed all of that disintegration took place ‘before’ your 100-ton Jetliner ever hit the Pentagon. :0) For your information, April Gallop and her son were sitting behind Column Line #6 (pic and pic = my thread), which is in the direct path of the port-side wing (pic) and she evacuated the building through the impact hole! Terry Cohen was sitting in a meeting inside one of those construction trailers just 100 feet from the impact hole. She grabbed her hardhat and ran to the impact hole within mere seconds ‘and’ reported “Just Smoke” (News Video). There was no massive fire that you are LYING about and no ‘intense heat’ that vaporized any 100-ton Jetliner . . .
. . . which we know by the fact that the black plastic remained unburned just outside the Pentagon. You see fire ‘now’ in this picture, because the DoD A-3 Jet returned exactly 4 minutes and 48 seconds ‘later’ to crash at this very same location in a second failed attempt to bring the E-ring roof down and simulate a real Jetliner crash.
So, no, the plane is not going to stay in one piece like some cartoon but rather burst apart.
Amazing, is it not?
Listen here: If anybody here want to believe this guy’s Official Cover Story NONSENSE, then go right ahead. All this guy can do is come out to this fine USMB Conspiracy Theories Board and tell Loyal Bushie LIES that have no basis in reality whatsoever.
GL,
Terral
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 519
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 576
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 645
- Views
- 5K
- Replies
- 15
- Views
- 83
- Replies
- 278
- Views
- 2K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8040
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 469
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-