DC Tom Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 And the debris on the left looks different than the debris on the right. That and the width of the damage counters the initial point that there was narrow damage, when the visual evidence doesn't corroborate it. I have no idea what the debris is, but there are more signs in that picture pointing to wider damage than from a missile strike. There are other pictures out there that show damage resulting from a plane hit than a missile. ps - Should National Geographic now be lumped in with gov't apologists, joing the ranks of Popular Mechanics? No...I'm telling you to distinguish between what you see and what you interpret. You see debris. You interpret as plane debris. But all you know is that it's debris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Things Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 I've had issues with fellow TBD'ers too at times...we all have. But it's not really cool to just blind side Tom or anyone else with such an out of context statement. Most of us don't know each other in person, but there are a lot of us who have been posting here and spending time with one another for many years, and we have established some sort of respect among our TBD peers. If you have some issue with Tom, then PM him or something...don't just post something inflammatory out of the blue and expect to not be taken to task on it. Fair enough. It's just that back in the day (pre-Iraq invasion) I was called all kinds of inflammatory names by the warmonger crowd here on this board and told to move out of the USA, which I happily did. Tom himself told me many times that I didn't know what I was talking about since he was the one with the "inside sources". I just find it sad and frustrating that these same people haven't found the humility to back off and stop sounding like the all-knowings and actually consider for a moment that people on the other side of the issue may have a valid point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Things Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 I've got such a dedicated fan club. It's cute. You've earned it there bud. Cute? I wouldn't find it cute at all if I were in your shoes. I'd reconsider that way I treated and spoke to people and think of occasionally listening to people instead of coming across the way you always did back in the day when ol' George W Bush was still popular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 I'd reconsider that way I treated and spoke to people and think of occasionally listening to people instead of coming across the way you always did back in the day when ol' George W Bush was still popular. I wouldn't. Because I don't give a ****, and you're still an ass who doesn't know what he's talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 No...I'm telling you to distinguish between what you see and what you interpret. You see debris. You interpret as plane debris. But all you know is that it's debris. No... I see two different kinds of debris. I don't know what the debris is. But in answering the question that since there's no evidence that a plane hit then it must be a missile, I offer the theory that the different debris is more likely to be from a plane than from a missile. The scrap metal could be office desks. But that picture by no means offers conclusive evidence that a missile hit, because it would take a bigger leap of logic to ignore the other evidence in the photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zona Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 Look up about the BBC reporter reporting Bldg 7 has fallen, when the reporter was standing in front of it. Ooops, too soon? Sorry. The two towers exploding can not, by the laws of physics (which we all live by every day), have occurred due to an airplane impact at the 90th floor. Impossible. Many Americans have a hard time disbelieving their government's official story, but it was a huge fabrication. Yeah, i've seen that video. Dont forget the owner of the building on video talking about telling the fire chief to "Pull" the building. A term used in demolition circles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 Looks like all the paste eaters are out today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Britbillsfan Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 It's the same sort of mentality that makes people think that the Kennedy assassination was a conspiracy too. They can't believe it happened, so they have to invent these enormous conspiracies in their minds. I remember seeing Oswald shot live on TV and my father saying "Holy S***!"over and over (I was 6 at the time). It was the the same reaction I had to watching the second plane hit. Yeah, conspiracy nuts. Gotta love the idiots who claim all sorts of things when they have no idea what they are talking about... sigh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Britbillsfan Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 The two towers exploding can not, by the laws of physics (which we all live by every day), have occurred due to an airplane impact at the 90th floor. Impossible. Case in point. Laws of physics - as dictated by those who have little or no understanding on how those buildings were constructed. I remember seeing one of the architects bemoaning the fact that he could never foresee how constructing the towers in the way that he did would contribute to them collapsing like that and feeling guilty over it. And he did state that they collapsed the way they did largely because of the construction methods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 Case in point. Laws of physics - as dictated by those who have little or no understanding on how those buildings were constructed. I remember seeing one of the architects bemoaning the fact that he could never foresee how constructing the towers in the way that he did would contribute to them collapsing like that and feeling guilty over it. And he did state that they collapsed the way they did largely because of the construction methods. Exactly, there was no center core. The WTC was Yamasaki's first sky scraper. He's a screen artist - in architectural terms. The outer lacework of steel was a key design element. Each concrete floor was hung to the outer skin - or screen. When the steel lost it's tensile strength after being roasted for hours by the burning jet fuel, the top floors came crashing down full force on the floors beneath them. It was a chain reaction - kinda like an elephant stepping on a pile of egg cartons. The physics of the matter have to take into account the force, i.e., mass times acceleration impacting each floor below it. The force increased with the acceleration of gravity and the additional weight of each successive failing floor. There's nothing illogical about the collapse itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dib Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 No... I see two different kinds of debris. I don't know what the debris is. I was closely involved with an aircraft crash once. There may not be 'recognizable' debris. If the impact is significant there aircraft tends to shred. Sometimes into pieces small enouch to be hand held. So, no, don't look for recognizable pieces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 Yeah, i've seen that video. Dont forget the owner of the building on video talking about telling the fire chief to "Pull" the building. A term used in demolition circles. I take it none of you saw the news broadcasts that day which reported that One Liberty Plaza had collapsed, that Deutsche Bank building had collapsed and that at least one of the World Financial towers had collapsed? Was that all part of the conspiracy too, or news reporting hearsay information which I'm guessing was in total disarray on that day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 The two towers exploding can not, by the laws of physics (which we all live by every day), have occurred due to an airplane impact at the 90th floor. Impossible. At what point exactly did the two towers "explode"? Conspiracy nuts make the world go 'round! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 Did you know 1/4 of Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy. Are you saying 1/4 of americans are retards? Yes I'm saying 1/4 of Americans are retards. Lets take a test sample. Theres 4 of us, your a retard, thats 1/4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 Did you know 1/4 of Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy. Are you saying 1/4 of americans are retards? Yes I'm saying 1/4 of Americans are retards. Lets take a test sample. Theres 4 of us, your a retard, thats 1/4 When calling others' intelligence out, it's helpful to spell correctly .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 When calling others' intelligence out, it's helpful to spell correctly .... Clearly someone doesnt watch South Park and personally i dont think my ability to type or spell really has a whole lot to do with my intelligence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Britbillsfan Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 Clearly someone doesnt watch South Park and personally i dont think my ability to type or spell really has a whole lot to do with my intelligence Although your choice of avatar is to be commended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 Although your choice of avatar is to be commended. Thank you sir Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 and personally i dont think my ability to type or spell really has a whole lot to do with my intelligence Maybe you would if you were more intelligent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dib Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 Maybe if you would if you were more intelligent. What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts