History Forum / General / General Topics / October 2007

..and you don't have any evidence..

Not according to people who fly jets everyday.  But what do they
know?  They only fly commerical and fighter jets daily.  I'm sure you
know more than them.  Get real, stop this crap.  Ken

The Kook's did not mention my favorite one.  This makes me sad.  The
best one I heard yet goes as follows (for the trade towers):
terrorists (of course bank rolled by the USA) take over plane
subdue passengers, and take control
while flying to target, each terrorist dresses in flame retardant suits.
plane crash, terrorists survive (with help from special suits)
terrorists exit plane, and take stairs to basement
basement is preloaded with explosives
terrorists detonate explosives

End Communication. .. .

LOL! you had me going there for a minute.

Obviously he is in complete agreement with you.

Great diagnosis, Dr Frist.

A flase conclusion based on an invalid assumption.   You have no proof
(just like all troofer claims) of what debris penetrated the structure.

No, because I don't create anomolies, contradictions, etc out of
baseless assumptions like your troofer links do.

"joseph" <whosh007@hushmail2.com> wrote in a message

It is impossible to identify the object in those videos.

I do. It's seems improbable they manage to fake the planes for the live
witnesses, as well as somehow managing to find every amateur video shot that
day, edit it, and return it to the owner without his/her knowledge.

hm, cool.  hey incidentally, i came across the image of the East Face of
WTC2 after the 767 hit, and oddly I saw no 'exit' hole that should
clearly be there. I was hoping someone can explain that to me cuz these
troofer nuts believe that's another slam dunker.

You can see it in the NIST document
http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session6/6McAllister.pdf

here's what those troofers say

"One final note that cannot be overemphasized was made in Part I. The
fact that there is no hole in the exit face that would accommodate an
object of this size proves that the object cannot be real.

According to someone calling himself heiho1, who commented after reading
Part I of this article, this is an incorrect statement. His basis for
declaring that? That he and the letsroll911.org crew had already reached
the conclusion "...that it was most likely a pyrophoric material like
uranium or similarly active heavy metals,..." which “…could easily, upon
exposure to oxygen in the air, burn through steel and concrete.”

Of course, for that to be true, there would have to be missing sections
of steel and/or concrete – which there are most certainly neither in any
photo or video.

Expounding on what Killtown concluded: Due to there being no hole in
WTC2 to account for any protrusion that size, the object we clearly
observe in all these videos (“live” or otherwise) is clearly not a solid
material of any kind.

Unless someone is desperate enough to start claiming it was a liquid or
a gas that flowed around the still-intact steel beams and then formed
itself into the approximate size and shape of a plane, we can pretty
much rule out anything real altogether."

"During my frame-by-frame analysis of all footage filmed from the north,
I noticed that without exception, there are two separate “exit-face”
explosions that merge to form one huge fireball. Until I saw this
picture (and many others in NIST’s various reports), it never dawned on
me that based on their spacing and their independent elevations, these
explosions were obviously supposed to represent the separate fuel tanks
spewing flaming kerosene forward due to its (would-be) momentum.

Here is where the perps showed their ability to improvise:

Because of the most obvious FOX-aired “nose-out” phenomenon, they were
forced to copy this blunder into all the other “amateur” footage which
would surely have shown it even more clearly than the “Chopper 5”
footage did.

To accomplish this, they had to abandon the independent fuel tank
explosion explanation for the separate fireballs and use what would have
represented the starboard-side explosion as cover for the “nose-out.” Of
course, this subsequently placed the port-side explosion out of
position. This was only a minor anomaly compared to having to explain
how an entire third of the still-intact plane emerged from the backside
of WTC2 in that FOX-aired blooper."

a few of the kooks on YT

Genghis6199
OzzybinOswald2
ewing2001
killtown
Thewebfairy

Which means troofers must be happier than pigs in sh.t.

Poor troofer, must be hell going through life looking over your shoulder
wondering when the government is coming to get you.

Questioning the "official story" (whatever that is) and claiming "9/11
was an inside job" are two completely different things.

Troofers don't question the government, they sell lies.

I still is hard to believe that none of the people who believe in that
video have absolutely no idea how a high rise building is buildt.  It
is not only possible, but likely that the nose could go through the
tower that high up and stick out the other side without hitting
anything to disfigure it.  But notice the rest of the plane did not
come out, it exploded, killing hijackers, pilots, crew, and
passengers.  Were all these people made up?  I believe their families
would have some things to say to anyone who would believe a silly
video like that.  But all you have to do is check with a architect and
aeronatutical engineer and they will explain exactly what happened and
why.  There simply is no mystery.  Two planes hit the WTC and they
collapsed as simulations show they would have.  This is an insult to
the people on the planes that died, except the hijackers, and all the
people who perished in the buildings.  Ken