Will 9/11 inside job ever answer my questions?

[Rat in the Hat]

He challenged me to watch one of the videos on Canada 9/11 Truth - Video Library. I chose one at random, Flight 77 - The White Plane.

I came up with the following questions, based on my watching all 36:54 minutes of the video.

The first witness claims the plane passed at treetop level over his house, over the Army-Navy Country Club, north of the Citgo station, and onward into the Pentagon. This would be ground effect flight, and experienced pilots could not manage this with any accuracy for the amount of time this would take, so how did this plane manage it?

Witness number 2 says the plane passed at treetop level over his golf course, (well south of the Citgo station) and onward into the Pentagon. Again, how could a pilot manage to fly in ground effect for this distance? Also, the witness claims twice that it was an American Airlines jet. Why does the interviewer browbeat him until he claims it was white?

Witness #3 says the plane was way south of the Citgo station. How does this square up with witness #1? Also this witness never said the plane was white, only that they saw numbers on the plane. Why does the narrator claim that she said it was white?

Witness #4 claims the plane had propellers. Why does the interviewer push her until she says it was a jet?

Witness #5 can't decide what color the plane was. Do you see him as credible?

Witnesses #6 through #9 are quoted, instead of interviewed. Why?

Witness #10 describes the plane that hit the Pentagon as being painted in the same color scheme as the government version of the Boeing 757-200, which is designated as the C-32 by the Air Force, and known as Air Force 2 when the vice president is onboard. Why would the govt. use such a valuable asset for the attack?

Witness #11 says it flew over the Citgo station, contradicting the last 10 witnesses. Why should we believe him?

Witness #12 claims the plane was trying to pull up and avoid the Pentagon. Why do the other 11 witnesses not make this claim? Mr Turcios also says the plane was silver. Again, he makes a claim the other 11 do not. Who do we believe?

The members of 9/11 Truth claim they are trying to teach the rest of us that there was a cover-up of the events of Sept 11, 2001. Here is a chance to educate me about one aspect of that day.

If 9/11 inside job can't or won't answer these questions, I will listen to anyone else willing to answer them.

 

[eots]

blah,blah blah blah what ?

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Yeah, that's the answer I thought I would get.

 

[DiveCon]

Yeah, that's the answer I thought I would get.

troofers are good at herp a derp

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Yeah, that's the answer I thought I would get.

troofers are good at herp a derp

Color me naive, but I never thought I would find one that makes Chri$$y look like a genius.

Until today.

 

[eots]

No I will color you ...lame

 

[DiveCon]

No I will color you ...lame

translation: derp

 

[Rat in the Hat]

No I will color you ...lame

Translation:

 

[Toro]

He challenged me to watch one of the videos on Canada 9/11 Truth - Video Library. I chose one at random, Flight 77 - The White Plane.

I came up with the following questions, based on my watching all 36:54 minutes of the video.

The first witness claims the plane passed at treetop level over his house, over the Army-Navy Country Club, north of the Citgo station, and onward into the Pentagon. This would be ground effect flight, and experienced pilots could not manage this with any accuracy for the amount of time this would take, so how did this plane manage it?

Witness number 2 says the plane passed at treetop level over his golf course, (well south of the Citgo station) and onward into the Pentagon. Again, how could a pilot manage to fly in ground effect for this distance? Also, the witness claims twice that it was an American Airlines jet. Why does the interviewer browbeat him until he claims it was white?

Witness #3 says the plane was way south of the Citgo station. How does this square up with witness #1? Also this witness never said the plane was white, only that they saw numbers on the plane. Why does the narrator claim that she said it was white?

Witness #4 claims the plane had propellers. Why does the interviewer push her until she says it was a jet?

Witness #5 can't decide what color the plane was. Do you see him as credible?

Witnesses #6 through #9 are quoted, instead of interviewed. Why?

Witness #10 describes the plane that hit the Pentagon as being painted in the same color scheme as the government version of the Boeing 757-200, which is designated as the C-32 by the Air Force, and known as Air Force 2 when the vice president is onboard. Why would the govt. use such a valuable asset for the attack?

Witness #11 says it flew over the Citgo station, contradicting the last 10 witnesses. Why should we believe him?

Witness #12 claims the plane was trying to pull up and avoid the Pentagon. Why do the other 11 witnesses not make this claim? Mr Turcios also says the plane was silver. Again, he makes a claim the other 11 do not. Who do we believe?

The members of 9/11 Truth claim they are trying to teach the rest of us that there was a cover-up of the events of Sept 11, 2001. Here is a chance to educate me about one aspect of that day.

If 9/11 inside job can't or won't answer these questions, I will listen to anyone else willing to answer them.

Good stuff Rat. Now I may get motivated when I'm bored out of my mind to what you did as well. I did that once, and of course, the twoofer didn't understand what he was posting.

So is it a video of witnesses and nothing else? Cause that's what it sounds like based on your questions. Here is a list of witnesses corroborating that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon.

9-11 Research: Eyewitnesses Accounts

 

[candycorn]

He challenged me to watch one of the videos on Canada 9/11 Truth - Video Library. I chose one at random, Flight 77 - The White Plane.

I came up with the following questions, based on my watching all 36:54 minutes of the video.

The first witness claims the plane passed at treetop level over his house, over the Army-Navy Country Club, north of the Citgo station, and onward into the Pentagon. This would be ground effect flight, and experienced pilots could not manage this with any accuracy for the amount of time this would take, so how did this plane manage it?

Witness number 2 says the plane passed at treetop level over his golf course, (well south of the Citgo station) and onward into the Pentagon. Again, how could a pilot manage to fly in ground effect for this distance? Also, the witness claims twice that it was an American Airlines jet. Why does the interviewer browbeat him until he claims it was white?

Witness #3 says the plane was way south of the Citgo station. How does this square up with witness #1? Also this witness never said the plane was white, only that they saw numbers on the plane. Why does the narrator claim that she said it was white?

Witness #4 claims the plane had propellers. Why does the interviewer push her until she says it was a jet?

Witness #5 can't decide what color the plane was. Do you see him as credible?

Witnesses #6 through #9 are quoted, instead of interviewed. Why?

Witness #10 describes the plane that hit the Pentagon as being painted in the same color scheme as the government version of the Boeing 757-200, which is designated as the C-32 by the Air Force, and known as Air Force 2 when the vice president is onboard. Why would the govt. use such a valuable asset for the attack?

Witness #11 says it flew over the Citgo station, contradicting the last 10 witnesses. Why should we believe him?

Witness #12 claims the plane was trying to pull up and avoid the Pentagon. Why do the other 11 witnesses not make this claim? Mr Turcios also says the plane was silver. Again, he makes a claim the other 11 do not. Who do we believe?

The members of 9/11 Truth claim they are trying to teach the rest of us that there was a cover-up of the events of Sept 11, 2001. Here is a chance to educate me about one aspect of that day.

If 9/11 inside job can't or won't answer these questions, I will listen to anyone else willing to answer them.

While you're at it; ask him about one of the videos--9/11 In Plane Site Director's Cut. I didn't watch the video off of the website because it wouldn't play. I did call it up direct from Google. At 40:35 circa, the host mentions pods under planes. Please ask him why none of the other videos mentions these supposed pods.

I'm headed back East on Monday for a week or so (family business) so I won't be on much.

 

[PhysicsExist]

In its July 2008 Draft Report for Public Comment, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) initially claimed that Building 7 collapsed 40% slower than free fall acceleration.

Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall? NIST’s lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object “has no structural components below it.”[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives. If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST’s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7’s destruction, NIST’s claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, “Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.”[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].”[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.

However, Mr. Chandler does explain how in Part 3 of his video, NIST Finally Admits Freefall, saying:[vi]

“In the case of a falling building, the only way it can go into free fall is if an external force removes the supporting structure. None of the gravitational potential energy of the building is available for this purpose, or it would slow the fall of the building. The fact of free fall by itself is strong evidence of explosive demolition, but the evidence of explosive demolition is even stronger than that.”

Mr. Chandler goes on to describe two particular attributes of Building 7’s free fall descent that make the evidence for explosive demolition even more overwhelming:

“What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall. Acceleration doesn’t build up gradually. The graph [measuring the building’s descent] simply turns a corner. The building went from full support to zero support instantly.”

Secondly:

“The onset of freefall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building… The fact the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width.”

Mr. Chandler summarizes the meaning of these observations, saying:

“The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.”

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

REFERENCES

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), “Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 – Draft for Public Comment,” Washington, DC. August 2008. Chapter 3 p.41. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf

[ii] NIST WTC 7 Technical Briefing, August 26, 2008. http://911speakout.org/NIST_Tech_Briefing_Transcript.pdf Transcript p.16

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Quoted by David Ray Griffin, “The Mysterious Collapse of WTC 7: Why NIST’s Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False,” GlobalResearch.ca, September 14, 2009. The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven

[v] NIST NCSTAR 1A, “Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7,” Washington, DC. November 2008. p.45 NIST and the World Trade Center

[vi]

 

[DiveCon]

what a shock, another NON-answer from PE

 

[PhysicsExist]

what a shock, another NON-answer from PE

Robert M. Bowman (born 1934) is a former Director of Advanced Space Programs Development for the U.S. Air Force in the Ford and Carter administrations, and a former United States Air Force Lieutenant Colonel with 101 combat missions. He holds a Ph.D. in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering from the California Institute of Technology.

 

[DiveCon]

still another NON-answer by PE

 

[Two Thumbs]

What gets me about these nuts is no matter how much proof there is that they are wrong, they will go with their assumptions over everything else.

I'm not talking about the fools that blather this cuz, they are suckers.

I'm talking about the people that profit from these "fools and their money soon part" that "are born every minute."

they've been crushed by colleges that did extensive research, embarrassed multiple times on the Science, History, Discovery and any other channel that has the actual facts. but they just keep going, producing more books for the derp squad to buy.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Well, it's been almost 24 hours since I posted this, and a week since I first asked him these questions, and here's a recap of the game thus far.

9/11 inside job is still too much of a chickenshit to answer the questions, even though he was the one that issued the challenge.

Eots has given the typical truther answer. None. They don't have any.

A jackass on my ignore list has spammed the thread, and posted 2 non-answers. (Thanks for not quoting him, Dive!)

And these are the folks who claim to have THE TRUTHTM.

At least Terral will back up his goofiness by answering questions, even if the answers are nonsense.

Truthers only answer questions if they can find a youtube that backs them up. It annoys the shit out of them when someone asks something that Jones or Avery hasn't made a video about yet.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

He challenged me to watch one of the videos on Canada 9/11 Truth - Video Library. I chose one at random, Flight 77 - The White Plane.

I came up with the following questions, based on my watching all 36:54 minutes of the video.

The first witness claims the plane passed at treetop level over his house, over the Army-Navy Country Club, north of the Citgo station, and onward into the Pentagon. This would be ground effect flight, and experienced pilots could not manage this with any accuracy for the amount of time this would take, so how did this plane manage it?

Witness number 2 says the plane passed at treetop level over his golf course, (well south of the Citgo station) and onward into the Pentagon. Again, how could a pilot manage to fly in ground effect for this distance? Also, the witness claims twice that it was an American Airlines jet. Why does the interviewer browbeat him until he claims it was white?

Witness #3 says the plane was way south of the Citgo station. How does this square up with witness #1? Also this witness never said the plane was white, only that they saw numbers on the plane. Why does the narrator claim that she said it was white?

Witness #4 claims the plane had propellers. Why does the interviewer push her until she says it was a jet?

Witness #5 can't decide what color the plane was. Do you see him as credible?

Witnesses #6 through #9 are quoted, instead of interviewed. Why?

Witness #10 describes the plane that hit the Pentagon as being painted in the same color scheme as the government version of the Boeing 757-200, which is designated as the C-32 by the Air Force, and known as Air Force 2 when the vice president is onboard. Why would the govt. use such a valuable asset for the attack?

Witness #11 says it flew over the Citgo station, contradicting the last 10 witnesses. Why should we believe him?

Witness #12 claims the plane was trying to pull up and avoid the Pentagon. Why do the other 11 witnesses not make this claim? Mr Turcios also says the plane was silver. Again, he makes a claim the other 11 do not. Who do we believe?

The members of 9/11 Truth claim they are trying to teach the rest of us that there was a cover-up of the events of Sept 11, 2001. Here is a chance to educate me about one aspect of that day.

If 9/11 inside job can't or won't answer these questions, I will listen to anyone else willing to answer them.

Good stuff Rat. Now I may get motivated when I'm bored out of my mind to what you did as well. I did that once, and of course, the twoofer didn't understand what he was posting.

So is it a video of witnesses and nothing else? Cause that's what it sounds like based on your questions. Here is a list of witnesses corroborating that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon.

9-11 Research: Eyewitnesses Accounts

That's all it is. The "interviewer" is going from place to place with a handful of airplane pictures, asking what they saw. If the answer isn't "a white plane", he keeps shoving the pics at them until they do.

I didn't even get into the part where one goes on and on saying it was white with a blue stripe, the next says it had a red stripe, and he quickly changes the subject on #2.

 

[candycorn]

Well, it's been almost 24 hours since I posted this, and a week since I first asked him these questions, and here's a recap of the game thus far.

9/11 inside job is still too much of a chickenshit to answer the questions, even though he was the one that issued the challenge.

Eots has given the typical truther answer. None. They don't have any.

A jackass on my ignore list has spammed the thread, and posted 2 non-answers. (Thanks for not quoting him, Dive!)

And these are the folks who claim to have THE TRUTHTM.

At least Terral will back up his goofiness by answering questions, even if the answers are nonsense.

Truthers only answer questions if they can find a youtube that backs them up. It annoys the shit out of them when someone asks something that Jones or Avery hasn't made a video about yet.

I'd be the last one to defend rimjob but I'm 99.9% sure that he's on public assistance and has to use the library to access the internet. So you can't hold not responding on weekends against him to be fair. He's not going to respond because there is no response for the questions except to disown and recant; two things that won't happen.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Well, it's been almost 24 hours since I posted this, and a week since I first asked him these questions, and here's a recap of the game thus far.

9/11 inside job is still too much of a chickenshit to answer the questions, even though he was the one that issued the challenge.

Eots has given the typical truther answer. None. They don't have any.

A jackass on my ignore list has spammed the thread, and posted 2 non-answers. (Thanks for not quoting him, Dive!)

And these are the folks who claim to have THE TRUTHTM.

At least Terral will back up his goofiness by answering questions, even if the answers are nonsense.

Truthers only answer questions if they can find a youtube that backs them up. It annoys the shit out of them when someone asks something that Jones or Avery hasn't made a video about yet.

I'd be the last one to defend rimjob but I'm 99.9% sure that he's on public assistance and has to use the library to access the internet. So you can't hold not responding on weekends against him to be fair. He's not going to respond because there is no response for the questions except to disown and recant; two things that won't happen.

I'm sorry, my friend, but I'm perfectly justified in holding his feet to the fire on this one. I first posted these questions in the "Explosives found in World Trade Center dust" thread on 2/14, and his last visit to this board was on 2/19 at 4:41 PM.

He has had ample opportunity to answer my questions in response to HIS challenge.

IF he is a man of his word, he will start a dialogue with me concerning his 65 videos.

If he doesn't, then he is just a chickenshit on a lower level than Christophera and Terral, both of whom will at least answer a challenge. Even when they know their answers are bullshit, at least they try.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Well, it's been almost 24 hours since I posted this, and a week since I first asked him these questions, and here's a recap of the game thus far.

9/11 inside job is still too much of a chickenshit to answer the questions, even though he was the one that issued the challenge.

Eots has given the typical truther answer. None. They don't have any.

A jackass on my ignore list has spammed the thread, and posted 2 non-answers. (Thanks for not quoting him, Dive!)

And these are the folks who claim to have THE TRUTHTM.

At least Terral will back up his goofiness by answering questions, even if the answers are nonsense.

Truthers only answer questions if they can find a youtube that backs them up. It annoys the shit out of them when someone asks something that Jones or Avery hasn't made a video about yet.

I'd be the last one to defend rimjob but I'm 99.9% sure that he's on public assistance and has to use the library to access the internet. So you can't hold not responding on weekends against him to be fair. He's not going to respond because there is no response for the questions except to disown and recant; two things that won't happen.

I'm sorry, my friend, but I'm perfectly justified in holding his feet to the fire on this one. I first posted these questions in the "Explosives found in World Trade Center dust" thread on 2/14, and his last visit to this board was on 2/19 at 4:41 PM.

He has had ample opportunity to answer my questions in response to HIS challenge.

IF he is a man of his word, he will start a dialogue with me concerning his 65 videos.

If he doesn't, then he is just a chickenshit on a lower level than Christophera and Terral, both of whom will at least answer a challenge. Even when they know their answers are bullshit, at least they try.

What do you think the chances are that you finally got through and he's doubting his beliefs?