I know what happens in 2012.

[titorite]

I'll have to retract my statement. During second 28 of the youtube video you posted you can see a bit of concrete bust out the other side.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWm5rU7oVn4

One of the mainstays of aircraft accident investigations is we do not "choose a theory and back it with evidence". Rather, the process uses evidence and data to eliminate those scenarios that the data/evidence shows could not happen. Once the tree of possibilities has been pruned, and all that are left are those things that the data/evidence allows could have happened, then a statement of highest liklihood is made for what had the highest probability of occurrence for happening.

That is the only proper way to investigate anything. So about all the pentagon photos I presented. Would you care to address some of those inconsistencies? Like why the grass infront of the impact point shown no sign of scorching. How did all the large pieces of werckage escape any burning despite being at the center of impact? You can't even find soot on any of the larger pieces of wreckage. What of all the light poles in the photos? The light poles are well past the freeway and they are directly in the path of the final approach, so why are they upright and undamaged? The jet flew in low to the ground, shouldn't the jet exhaust burned/browned the grass?

Can you address these questions I bring up based on the photos I posted?

photo number one of light poles in relation to wreckage


Photo two

 

[RainmanTime]

So about all the pentagon photos I presented. Would you care to address some of those inconsistencies?

I'd be happy to:

Like why the grass infront of the impact point shown no sign of scorching.

Why do you assume it should be? Or better yet, how do you know it is not, and simply scorched in a wide dispersal (i.e. individual blades or sections but perhaps not whole swatches)? The fact is that hot gases (hotter than the surrounding air) rise. This is why your attic in your house is always hotter than your main floor. This is also why a hot air balloon rises. The gases in the impact explosion were certainly more hot than the surrounding atmosphere. So first of all, if we assume no other forcing velocity, the tendency for these particles is to rise. Now we know there were other forcing velocities (outward from the Pentagon). But even with these outward components of velocity there are still going to be buoyant forces acting on these hot gases to give them an upward component of velocity in addition to that component of velocity sending them outward from the blast. It would be incorrect to assume that the majority of the molecules of hot gas had to impinge on the grass for these reasons. That is not to say that SOME of these molecules did not hit the grass, but it would clearly not be a majority. So with all of these FACTS, again I ask why we must assume a "scorched earth policy" must be the norm? For all we know, if you had a very close-up shot (as opposed to the ones further away) we might see some minimal signs of scorching.

How did all the large pieces of werckage escape any burning despite being at the center of impact? You can't even find soot on any of the larger pieces of wreckage.

Why do you assume that all pieces must be burned or have some noticeable sign of soot on them? I can explain a viable physical reason why some pieces would not. When pieces start to fly apart from the airplane after such a violent collision, quite a few pieces will "bounce off" the building as the airplane disintegrates, and they will have velocities AWAY from the building. This is reversal of momentum due to the "elastic collision" effect. Soot requires smoke, and at that moment of the fireball there was little smoke (that comes later). Burning or charring of the parts requires sustained fire (and by sustained I mean for at least several seconds). When the airplane flies apart on impact, a great many of those pieces that are thrown outward away from the impact zone will not experience any smoke (hence, no soot) and they will fly away so rapidly that they will not experience sustained fire. Look at photos of many aircraft accidents and you will see many airplane parts thrown clear of the impact area. Not many of those have soot or are charred. Pan Am 103 (Lockerbie Scotland), or United Airline DC-10 into Sioux City Iowa. I can show plenty of examples of why one should not immediatley assume that parts thrown clear of an impact site should always be sooted or charred. Again, you may wish to cling to a belief that they should be sooted/charred, but that does not make it real, actual or truthful. The fact is this happens on many aircraft accidents.

What of all the light poles in the photos? The light poles are well past the freeway and they are directly in the path of the final approach, so why are they upright and undamaged? The jet flew in low to the ground, shouldn't the jet exhaust burned/browned the grass?

How do you know they were directly in the path of the final approach? How do you know how low if flew to the ground before impact? Where is the evidence that allows you to make these conclusions? In photo #1 how do you know the airplane should have passed over the light posts in that photo, and in addition how do you know that it was at an altitude to hit them? In photo #2 how do you know the direction that this photo is taken from is the actual lateral flight path into the building? Where is the undisputable evidence that leads to an assumption that these posts were in the pathway of the jet?

That is the only proper way to investigate anything.

I am trying to tone down the rhetoric, but the questions I ask above indicate that you are not following the best practices of aircraft accident investigations. All of the things you have asked me to address are apparant assumptions. You seem to think that all the parts thrown clear should have been sooted/charred. You seem to assume the posts not clipped were definitely in the approach path or at/below the level of the airplane. But there is no hard evidence that would allow you to make those conclusions. Let me try to explain with your last question:

The jet flew in low to the ground, shouldn't the jet exhaust burned/browned the grass?

Where is the evidence that tells us exactly HOW LOW it flew over the ground? We would need that if we were to wish to perform a thermodynamic analysis to show the grass had to be burned/browned. We cannot just assume "it must have flown low enough for the engines to burn the grass". Another factor is HOW FAST it came in. Over 500 mph. At that speed there may not be time for the grass to have been burned, especially if the jet exhuast cone was more than 3-4 feet above the ground.

What I am describing to you is just how excruciatingly we adhere to standards of evidence in aircraft accident investigations. No aircraft investigator for the NTSB (or private companies) would ever just assume "the jets must have been close enough to the ground to burn the grass." They would have to have EVIDENCE that they, in fact, WERE that close to the ground. That would be something like the radar altimeter readouts from the airplane in question. Once again, I don't doubt that you may poo-poo this and say that I am "ignoring evidence", but I am not. Instead I am asking for the evidence to back your assumptions that these things should have happened.

Another photo you posted may indeed show some signs of ground disturbance where you seem to claim there is none. When I get home from work this evening, I will download that photo, mark it up, and repost it to show you where I see something that MAY be evidence of the grass being disturbed. Bear with me.

RMT

 

[recall15]

hmmmm

an another side of the discussion here about 9-11

quoted:
"Evidence now built higher than the lost towers themselves, points towards BETRAYAL ON AN UNIMAGINABLE SCALE, against you and I THE PEOPLE,
to pave the way for WARS PLANNED LONG AGO.

On that fateful September morning, more than 3000 + people, mother's, fathers, sons and daughters, were MASSACRED by bombs beneath their feet, and flames above their heads, while those who weren't, jumped to escape the nightmarish slaughter.

How does that make you feel?

Since then, MANY HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of further innocents, are no longer with us, their lives taken, by those same bombs in the towers.

'Planes' were crashed, no body parts found, everything miraculously vaporised.

The passengers on THE REAL planes, were probably (and I hate to say it, the words don't come easy) taken to a secret faciliy, lined against a wall, and shot.

If not, they now probably lie beneath the Atlantic, in a tin coffin, put there by a laughing goverment, that still walks free.

Either way, any possible witnesses, as witness to THE CRIME were eliminated.

Their deaths should NEVER be forgotten, and inquests in to how they really died, should be started now.
All died heroically, and we will never hear their stories.

Following the bloodbath, kangaroo courts were set up, in prosecution of a foreign religion, which still today, remain in effect.

'You're either with us, or against us,' (GWB Nov 2001)
meaning,- if you're against us, YOU ARE a terrorist.

That's many people like YOU and I.

How does it feel to be a terrorist?

"
end quoted from:
STA web page

--
regards
USAF's “Space Assets?”

 

[ruthless]

well, i have never flown a plane, and probably never will. BUT!, i have used microsoft flight simulator since wayyy back in the day. im pretty sure that i could easily fly that plane into that spot. with a keyboard no less! however, one would expect to bounce off the pentagon. after all, it does have the u.s.'s most important folks in it.

im bored, so i think im gonna fire the simulator up and try it inverted :O

on another note, why dont you guys stop arguing? titorite, are you aware that rmt is an official genius?! seriously, he makes planes and stuff man. so this is what i propose to maybe get a pause in the titorite-rmt warzone: maybe 911 was designed to fool engineers. maybe the government thought up a plan, and said, "hey, we cant do it that way, the engineers will notice. we cant let them know anything." because both of yall are on the same side. rmt isnt defending the government, he is defending science.

this thread was "i know what happens in 2012." well, i know what happens in 2012. titorite and rmt are still arguing about 911 lol.

yall are both smart people, and i can only assume that you both know that you arent going to change each others opinions on the subject. just my opinion on it. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[jmpet]

recall- your last post is a little bit over the top. But then again, all conspiracy theories always are.

>The passengers on THE REAL planes, were probably (and I hate to say it, the words don't come easy) taken to a secret faciliy, lined against a wall, and shot.<

Come on man- absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Any real hope of ever getting to the bottom of a conspiracy revolves around inconsistencies in the facts, not assumptions- stick to the facts.

You should pick out 3-6 things about 9/11 that don't add up and that should be your focus. I posted on this thread what appears to be two different security cams when there should only be one. And it's not cropped or photoshopped- it's clearly another video. THAT ALONE is enough info to get people asking questions, but you glazed over it.

Where are the tollbooths and orange cones in this photo?

Why does the curb in the foreground appear to be different?

 

[RainmanTime]

Jmpet,

There were two videos, from two cameras in the same general area. Judicialwatch got both of these videos:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/flight77.shtml

RMT

 

[titorite]

In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like why the grass infront of the impact point shown no sign of scorching.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Why do you assume it should be? Or better yet, how do you know it is not, and simply scorched in a wide dispersal ... So with all of these FACTS, again I ask why we must assume a "scorched earth policy" must be the norm? For all we know, if you had a very close-up shot (as opposed to the ones further away) we might see some minimal signs of scorching.

When planes crash and explode they scorch the earth. That is normal is it not?

In the above photo we can see that the white hot fireball expands past the structure so we can have a general idea of how far the flame traveled along the ground. A white hot fireball should incinerate the ground charring it black shouldn't it? Isn't the ground normaly charred black at plane crash sites?

In the photo two photos below we can see a clear lack of blackend ground.

And in the above photo here we can reference the building in relation to the fire ball. And again that grass does not look scorched, singed, or even browned.

Why do you assume that all pieces must be burned or have some noticeable sign of soot on them? I can explain a viable physical reason why some pieces would not. When pieces start to fly apart from the airplane after such a violent collision, quite a few pieces will "bounce off" the building as the airplane disintegrates, and they will have velocities AWAY from the building. This is reversal of momentum due to the "elastic collision" effect. Soot requires smoke, and at that moment of the fireball there was little smoke (that comes later). Burning or charring of the parts requires sustained fire (and by sustained I mean for at least several seconds). When the airplane flies apart on impact, a great many of those pieces that are thrown outward away from the impact zone will not experience any smoke (hence, no soot) and they will fly away so rapidly that they will not experience sustained fire. Look at photos of many aircraft accidents and you will see many airplane parts thrown clear of the impact area. Not many of those have soot or are charred. Pan Am 103 (Lockerbie Scotland), or United Airline DC-10 into Sioux City Iowa. I can show plenty of examples of why one should not immediatley assume that parts thrown clear of an impact site should always be sooted or charred. Again, you may wish to cling to a belief that they should be sooted/charred, but that does not make it real, actual or truthful. The fact is this happens on many aircraft accidents.

Well I know if I put a steel butter knife in a lighter flame it will blacken the metal in about five seconds or less. I don't think the blackening is cause by smoke but by carbon residue. Judgeing by the size of the explosion I would assume that any debries that flew away would have some blackened carbon residue...

How do you know they were directly in the path of the final approach? How do you know how low if flew to the ground before impact? Where is the evidence that allows you to make these conclusions? In photo #1 how do you know the airplane should have passed over the light posts in that photo, and in addition how do you know that it was at an altitude to hit them? In photo #2 how do you know the direction that this photo is taken from is the actual lateral flight path into the building? Where is the undisputable evidence that leads to an assumption that these posts were in the pathway of the jet?

Well for one thing I saw a nice youtube video earlier that showed the flight path and the light poles flight 77 hit. Yup according to the offical story 5 light poles were knocked down by the plane. I just found this youtube video today. Although I do have to wonder about pole #one

a plane traveling at 550 miles an hour knocks down a lamp post into this car and only the windshield is damaged? Lets get a close up.

Here we can see the refelction off the hood...No dents, No scratchs in the paint, Nothing to indicate a lamp post knocked over by an object traveling at 550 MPH other than a broken windshield?
Is damage to the car consistent with what was reported to of happened to it?

In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The jet flew in low to the ground, shouldn't the jet exhaust burned/browned the grass?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Where is the evidence that tells us exactly HOW LOW it flew over the ground?

The evidence is in the height of impact hole. The impact hole was at the bottom of the pentagon not the top somewhere around the first and second story. From this we can safely assume that the plane was somewhere within 10 feet give or take off the ground. Further evidence is in the alleged 5 cliped light poles. Since the plane cliped them we know that it was flying under them.

As for the speed of the plane. It was around 550 mph. Shouldn't the thrust alone tear up grass and ground?


Take your time RMT..We'll all be here waiting to hear from you.

 

[RainmanTime]

rmt isnt defending the government, he is defending science.

Thank you, ruthless. I might tweak the wording a bit (but you have the right idea): I am imploring we adhere to the best practices of scientific methods in our investigations, and not allow our beliefs to dictate the conclusions. Only the evidence should do that.

because both of yall are on the same side.

Kind of, but not exactly. I believe there is sufficient evidence to believe the GOV knew 9-11 was coming, but I just cannot see any real evidence that definitively points to the GOV actually orchestrating it. It is my belief that to jump to that bigger conclusion is inappropriate, given the current evidence, and not supported by the facts of that evidence.

I would also like to see more investigation (by professionals, not Alex Jones), and I would also like to see more evidence revealed. But I also can understand the need to withhold some evidence, and it is seen in the trial of Moussaoui, where held-back evidence WAS released during that trial. The reason evidence is withheld from public view when criminal acts have taken place are for very good reasons:

1) To not permit perpetrators to begin to prepare their defense BEFORE they are even apprehended.
2) To not pollute any potential jury pool with information that could bias their opinion (one way or the other).

These are reasons that are used quite often for not releasing evidence (although sometimes evidence will find ways to be leaked). I am not making excuses for our GOV, I am relating facts about what has been done in past precedent and the reasons for that past precedent.

RMT

 

[titorite]

RMT does not defend the government version of events he defends science....If thus is so then I will be able to open his eyes to a few fine inconsistencies he may of missed.

He believes the government knew but failed to act. Why not cross the rubicon and accept that Elements (not the whole but some) within our own government enabled and helped in the attack just like the Gulf of Tolkin? I don't have every answer and I don't claim too. When wrong I promptly admit it. At this point I don't think mine and RMTs debate is "heated". Now indazona is doing a good job of emotionalizing our disscussion but he picks and chooses what he will and will not answer and the answers he does give have not been addressing questions I bring up.

I am willing to debate this event because I believe I can change peoples minds by pointing out the flaws and contradictions in the offical story. WTC7,Pancake collapse,paper passports that survive fireballs, unburnable grass,Failed pilots preforming ace areonautical manuvers, etc. etc. and once that is understood one can move onto "cue bono" and how. Then once you understand the truth and the lies you can ask "what am I willing to do about it"

 

[JustLurking]

" Hi again JL,

I'd like to say you are quite a pleasurable person to discuss and debate with... even if we don't agree on everything. I appreciate that very much."

Hi RMT,

Yeah, I've enjoyed discussing this topic along with you guys - although its got a ways off track from discussing titorites claims to know what happens in 2012. :D (coff, coff) I've appreciated the time you've taken to answer my posts. Admittedly, I'm no Physics or engineering expert but as I'm reading these posts and doing research on my own, I'm learning about a lot of new things. I read up on Euler Buckling lastnight. While its all greek to me - I think I understand better why the twin towers collapsed esp when reviewing the NIST reports.

"[/i]Gotcha. Now I understand, and yes I would also like to see such a test. It would be closer to what the commercial jet experienced at the Pentagon.

Yes, at first I also guessed the same thing. But then when titorite posted one of his pictures (the one which shows the Pentagon "peeled open" with lots of service vehicles outside already working on repairs) I noticed that the outer "shell" wall (where you can clearly see its thickness and some office spaces opened to the outside) does not seem as thick as I would have expected. Given perspective of this photo as compared to the close-up shots of the F-4 video, I can't for sure say that the Pentagon is "as thick", "thicker", or "thinner" than the F-4 wall that was tested. And of course we cannot tell just by looking at it to what standards it was built or reinforced. It would be a good little investigative project to see if one could ascertain the similarities or differences between the two walls. It could go a long way towards either validating the F-4 video as "similar" to the Pentagon, or invalidating certain aspects of it.
[/i]

I agree. In fact, perhaps two tests could be performed, one head on at the first test wall and then a 2nd test on a 2nd wall - from the calculated angle of attack the plane used to impact the building.

I'll take a look at those pictures again. Something tells me those walls couldn't have been tilt up panels - and that they were poured in place. That building was built in the early 1940's so there should be some construction pictures of it with false work in place, online dating from when it was built.

Heres some facts I found online. 3 construction systems were used to construct the building: Reinforced Concrete walls, wood framing, slate roof.

Details

Location is across the Potomac River from Washington D.C.

71 feet (21.6 meters) high, five stories tall, plus a mezzanine and basement.
The five concentric rings are named A, B, C, D, E, from the inner ring facing the courtyard (A ring) to the outside ring (E).
921 feet along each outer side facade
Floor area of 6.5 million square feet, 34 acres, 13.8 hectares, of which 3.7 million square feet are used for offices.
80 million dollar construction cost in 1943 dollars
17.5 miles of corridors


During construction, up to 13,000 workers were employed. 6,000,000 cubic yards of earth was moved, 41,492 concrete pilings were driven. The construction documents included 2500 sheets of drawings, typically sized 34"x60". 410,000 cubic yards of concrete went into the building, using 680,000 tons of sand and gravel dredged from the adjacent Potomac River.

Source: http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/The_Pentagon.html

 

[recall15]

OK

what about this:

Choppervideo: Missile or Drone hitting the pentagon on 911?
Link to Youtube...

--
regards
Trinagular ship on the moon

 

[RainmanTime]

I was waiting for you to try and rebut this one:

In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The jet flew in low to the ground, shouldn't the jet exhaust burned/browned the grass?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where is the evidence that tells us exactly HOW LOW it flew over the ground?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence is in the height of impact hole. The impact hole was at the bottom of the pentagon not the top somewhere around the first and second story. From this we can safely assume that the plane was somewhere within 10 feet give or take off the ground. Further evidence is in the alleged 5 cliped light poles. Since the plane cliped them we know that it was flying under them.

As for the speed of the plane. It was around 550 mph. Shouldn't the thrust alone tear up grass and ground?

I am now going to give you the absolute definitive answer why you are wrong about this, and why it is a bad assumption. I guarantee you that there shall be no wiggle room. Even if the airplane was skimming across the ground such that the engines were only inches off the grass, it is a bad assumption. And before I explain this to you I want to say that, if you are an honorable man, you will come back after this and admit your assumption is wrong and no longer even question why the grass was not scorched or even torn up. If you do NOT come back and admit this, I will continue to exhibit why your assumptions are poor. And it will just continue to make you look like an uninformed thinker.

What I am going to explain you may, or may not, already know. It is something I teach in my ARO 103 course which is Introduction to Aerospace Propulsion. You may know that all commercial aircraft these days (including a 757) are powered by what is called a High Bypass Turbofan Engine. If you understand what the word "bypass" means in relation to the design of such engines, you will know why it is unthinkable that a jet engine would scorch the grass, even if the engine is flying inches above the grass. I will now explain why.

In a high bypass turbofan engine there are actually TWO exhaust jets that come out of the back of the engine. These exhaust jets, if you are looking at the engine from the back, would form the shape of a donut. The "hole of the donut" is the exhaust from the "gas generator" portion of the engine. This is the part that goes through the combustor, and this is the part that is both very high speed and very high temperature. The "donut itself" (not the hole) represents the "bypass exhaust flow". It is common knowledge that the bypass flow does NOT pass thru a fuel atomizer and does NOT get combusted. Therefore its temperature is only slightly higher than the air that is ingested through the engine's intake, and its velocity is quite a bit slower than the "gas generator" exhaust.

What this means is that, even if the airplane was skimming such that the engines were even 1-2 INCHES off the grass, the grass would NEVER BE SCORCHED OR UPROOTED because the bypass flow acts as a "buffer" around the "gas generator" (high temp, high speed) engine exhaust. It PROTECTS the grass, essentially.

This is yet another example of why you make assumptions which you think are "inconsistencies", and in doing so you are revealing that you already have a conclusion in your mind (i.e. that it was not a 757 that hit the Pentagon). And yet, because you do not think like an aerospace engineer (perhaps you DID know about high bypass turbofans, but you did not think to reason why they would PREVENT grass from being burned) you made an incorrect assumption. I assure you, there are more situations just like this that are wrapped-up in your bad assumptions.

The choice is now yours. Your response to this will determine whether you are honorable or not, because I guarantee you there is no way for you to dispute this. It is a FACT of commercial aircraft engine design and operation. The readers of this thread are now going to see what kind of person you are. And they have already learned an important lesson about jet engines that PROVES why it is a bad idea to make assumptions like this.

What say you, titorite? I will not post another reply to you in this thread until I hear you address this and either admit this is a bad assumption, and agree the grass would not be scorched, or you continue your "campaign" to get people to make bad assumptions which lead to false conclusions.

RMT

edit: What follows is a NASA page that proves what I am saying about turbofan jet engine design is true:

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/turbfan.html

 

[jmpet]

titorite- Start a new thread here (let's all stop jacking this one) and outline your problems with 911. List them and go into brief detail. No conjecture. Personally, I am on the fence as far as 911 goes- I think there is a conspiracy but it has nothing to do with the actual events of 911- it has to do with other things that 911 is a small part of. I think that the more we debate pointless 911 points, the deeper the real conspiracy gets buried. So let's try to get to the heart of the matter.

I also suggest you (and everyone else interested) do some real research:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/

I read that entire site a few years ago (took me a few weeks)- - that, along with several good documentaries (particulaly "Inside 911") is enough to convince anyone 911 went down as they say it did. I'd like to know what hasn't already been covered.

 

[recall15]

an now "They" rewrite the History:



American Airlines - "9/11 Didn't Happen"

--
regards
http://www.spaceheroes.org/

 

[ruthless]

"OK

what about this:

Choppervideo: Missile or Drone hitting the pentagon on 911?"

your asking me? really? ok then...

i would like to enter into evidence exhibits a and b. :D


http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=u3_liaBfg2U&mode=related&search=


http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I

i am a firm believer that something fishy is up with 911. but, rmt has shown proof that certain things are not possible that conspiracy theorists believe. he has also proven, to me, that the twin towers were, in fact, brought down the way the government said.

now i have a question for rmt that should either end the pentagon debate, or fire it on up, depending on his answer.

rmt, in your proffesional opinion, do you believe that the pentagon was hit by a 757? was the hole indicative of a 757 crash?

judging from all of the wreckage, and eyewitness reports, i believe it was more than likely a 757.

this is another problem i have with conspiracy websites. i read that there was no wreckage, and that the only wreckage recovered was an engine that was not an engine from a 757. i also read that no light poles were hit, along with the question, "how can it come in at such a low angle and not hit any light poles?" then titorite posts a pic of one.

to me, it seems as if conspiracy theorists purposely overlook things to make others believe the same. this only creates dissent amongst americans.

what is the bigger question to me is, why would a man who was at one time, an ally to our government decide to destroy america? and why now? what was the straw that broke the camels back so to speak? the "holy war" bull really doesent cut it with me. i feel like there is a reason they did this, and i feel there is a reason the government does not tell us why. i also feel there is a reason iraq caught hell for it and afghanistan didnt. those are the things i would like to know.

btw, bush didnt help matters much by being an evil mofo.
just my opinion.

 

[ruthless]

"Failed pilots preforming ace areonautical manuvers, etc. etc."

i have never flown a plane in my entire life, and i could easily fly that plane there. easily.

how do i know if ive never flown a plane? simple really. the same way i judge a corner in my car. ive never hit the corner before, but i know what my car can and cant do after experimenting with it. 30 minutes or less inside the plane and i know its handling characteristics inside and out, and its very simple. i'll put it like this, crashing into the pentagon would be easier to do than land on a runway, to me that is.

 

[RainmanTime]

i would like to enter into evidence exhibits a and b.

FANTASTIC video finds, ruthless! Man, I really love Penn Gillette. And I must say, some of the things he says in that video about some of those "analysis-challenged" people are things that I am constantly thinking. I just love the way he said "eff you" to that guy who CLAIMS to have evidence that the planes were landed and the people are still alive! Listen to his words again. He actually says "the evidence we have".... but WHERE THE EFF IS THAT EVIDENCE? All it amounts to is heresay unless he can SHOW EVIDENCE.

The other video is also a great find, ruthless, because is shows PRECISELY how the "Loose Change" TRAITORS (and yes I can call them this because of their obvious doctoring of eyewitness testimony!) edit out crucial words that this witness gave wherein he admitted he saw not just an airplane, but and American Airlines airplane. These words are so important to indict the Loose Change TRAITORS that we should repeat that quote in words here---

Mike Walter of USA Today Live: "I saw this plane, a jet, this American Airlines jet coming, and I thought this doesn't add up, it's really low.... and I saw it, and it was LIKE a cruise missile WITH WINGS".

Now again, I will go back to what I told Rusty. Eyewitness accounts are not used as PRIMARY evidence. They are only useful as a means to SUPPORT the primary evidence, which is material evidence. So here we go:

MATERIAL EVIDENCE - The pieces of the airplane on the Pentagon lawn which clearly show a polished aluminum with at least white and red trim, including a piece that clearly has the red letter "c" on it that matches the word "American" on the side of the AA jet. (Not to mention other pieces of the jet found inside... engine or APU disk, landing gear, landing gear wheel, etc.)

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE - The eyewitness testimony given by Mr. Walter above.

Don't fall victim to the people who want you to make bad assumptions, ruthless. There is more than ample evidence that supports the story that it was an AA 757 that hit the Pentagon. I think you know that. And now you have me on record.

RMT

 

[ruthless]

well folks, there you have it. a certified aerospace engineer proves that it was indeed a 757. if someone wants to say, "no rmt, your wrong." i have but one thing to say: prove it.

the only way rmt would lie about this is if the government was paying him off. the dude makes freaking planes!!! i mean, c'mon now, he's loaded if he makes planes, and obviously smart enough to make sound investments, so why would he need more money? he's got enough.

btw, recall, why would you even think that footage was real? i'd like to make a statement, then a question. when taking high quality footage and then converting it to low quality, errors and corruption sometimes occur. meaning this video was converted to a lower quality.

why would someone want to lower the quality? gears turning yet? i hope. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[titorite]

<font color="red"> Why do you say I am wrong about a question? Questions are not answers. I asked you if the exhast should of left scorch marks. I did not insist that it had to be so. you misread my posts. Please pay more attention...If it has a question mark at the end it IS a question. I'm not trying to sound like a jerk but you launched into this long diatribe about honor and my assumption and my uninformed opinion that are not facts when at the matter of hand I just asked a question? You answered it. Now I understand why the turbo props could not of scorched the grass because you answered my question albeit in a most "colorful" manner.

You can stop responding anytime you like. Although I do wish you would answer my other questions first. You picked the single one and ran with it because you knew your area of expertise...only you didn't quite seem to convay your understanding that I was not makeing statements. Questions. [/COLOR]


So now can I hear you explaination for the fireball not burning the grass and why the larger chunks of wreckage show no carbon residue and the reason why and the car that got hit by the pole knocked over at 500+MPH only has a damaged windsheild???...I know you probably have a perfectly logical answer for the second question so if I can prioritize these remaining questions I'd like to hear your answers for the car and the fireball first as asked a post back.

 

[titorite]

Well jmpet, Since I started this thread I really have no problem with its current direction.