Alternative 9/11 Theories

Originally posted by jfj123
Do you really have that much of a problem with the english language or are you trolling for fun?

Do you have that much of a problem providing evidnece when asked? We would not have to keep going over this if you would have provided evidence when i first asked at the beginning of several of these threads.

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Watch this video, share what you see.
Then ask Ultima what he sees and you will notice something.

Why are you trolling? Do i have to inform a mod?

I am not going to respond to this again.

I have already proven my points form this video.



[edit on 3-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by WraothAscendant


I think I might have seen this video, but I will watch it again. At the moment, it seems like YouTube has a problem streaming the videos (or maybe it's just me). I'll watch it whenever I get a chance.

Ultima, would you like to go first instead and share what you see?

Originally posted by HLR53K
Ultima, would you like to go first instead and share what you see?

Basically the video shows that the nose, wings, and tail did not make it inside or through the buildings.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Nope, merely pointing something out here....
And never said anything slanderous so I am safely within the limits of the T&C.

At anyrate, your derailing the thread Ultima and bunch.
This thread is about Alternative Theories.
Not about the constant (and not to mention redunant) argument.
But of course I understand you "truthers" can't have that.
Thus the sorry state this thread is in and has sunk to.

All well and good you think your righteous but as I said before, all anyone has to do is look at this BS from a objective standpoint to see for whatever reason a opposing viewpoint so threatens you that you have to sink it in the standard BS.

If you don't agree and think I am just full of crap, what good purpose (other than pure hubris) is there to post here and troll.

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
At anyrate, your derailing the thread Ultima and bunch.
This thread is about Alternative Theories.

Then why are you derailing the thread by posting the Purdue video when we were not even talking about it?

You are just trolling becasue you cannot psot any evindece to support your claims or the official story.

[edit on 4-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Considering the fact I have been over this a gazillion times with you and yet even now you continue to constantly miscatagorize me, well. LoL! About that video too.

No the point I was making to him needed to be shown rather than said.


Oh and this thread is entitled "Alternative Theories", I am not the one trolling here.

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Oh and this thread is entitled "Alternative Theories", I am not the one trolling here.

So what does the Purdue video you just posted have to do with "Alternative Theories", or what me and others had been talking about?

Seems to me you are just trolling, maybe we should let the mods decide?


[edit on 4-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Oh and this thread is entitled "Alternative Theories", I am not the one trolling here.

So what does the Purdue video you just posted have to do with "Alternative Theories", or what me and others had been talking about?

Seems to me you are just trolling, maybe we should let the mods decide?


[edit on 4-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Can we let them decide if you were willingly dishonest in the other thread too? Or just this one?

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Threats very seldom work very great on me friend.
And while we are it.
You (and your cronies) brought the same old crap here, to a thread that was not created to address the same old BS I have been over with you (and your cronies) again and again. Yet here you (and they) are.
Derailing a conversation you do not agree with because it for some reason threatens you.
Otherwise why would you be posting here.
I know the self righteous "Because I do my research and I know the truth." (which has repeatedly not stood up to any sort of scrutiny) response but either way, if I am so wrong why bother to troll my thread?
Already made it abundantly clear I will not respond well to bullyboy tactics.

[edit on 4-5-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by _Del_
Can we let them decide if you were willingly dishonest in the other thread too? Or just this one?

Sure if we let them decide that you have been dishonest in not providing evindence when asked.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Do you really have that much of a problem with the english language or are you trolling for fun?

Do you have that much of a problem providing evidnece when asked? We would not have to keep going over this if you would have provided evidence when i first asked at the beginning of several of these threads.

Same here. We started this WHOLE thing because when I asked you, you refused to provide any evidence and just kept making claims. Had you actually posted evidence at the beginning, we wouldn't be here now. Your bad. I'm ending it now. I will no longer play games with you. I will only post and answer questions pertaining to the thread topic and respond to reasonable people regardless of their opinion. In other words I'm done arguing piontlesly with you about something you simply don't or won't see. DONE.

[edit on 4-5-2008 by jfj123]

Ok, I fixed the problem. It wasn't YouTube, but rather my Flash installation got screwed up for some reason. It would just hang after playing 2 seconds of any video.

From what I see in the video, there is a B767 flying into the WTC at a slight bank. The wings manage to shear the outer columns that they encounter and are themselves sheared right afterwards, as they make their way into the building. It looks like they stay relatively intact as a mass (as shown from the outside view of the crash) before being dispersed about 1/4 to 1/2 way in.

The nose pretty much compresses as it first contacts the outside, but pushes through, along with the rest of the fuselage, shearing columns as it goes. The fuselage manages to make it a bit further in (opposed to the wings) as an intact mass before it starts being broken up as well.

The tail slides in behind the breaks already created by the wings, but looks like as it hits the already broken columns inside the building, they too start getting warped and eventually destroyed.

As the narrator says, the titanium engine shafts breaks out of the engines and start bouncing their way though the building.

Mass from both the B767 and the building are both carried out the other side of the building from what I'm going to assume is the momentum the airplane mass had.

I don't believe I remember seeing the fuel modeling part before, but wow! Right as soon as the wing structure is broken open, it just pours fuel everywhere inside the building. Fluid modeling has really gotten scary realistic in terms of physics recently. Next time you're watching a movie or a commercial, that fluid being shown moving around might actually be all computerized. Just something to think about.

Again, that's just what I see in this video.

Originally posted by HLR53K
Mass from both the B767 and the building are both carried out the other side of the building from what I'm going to assume is the momentum the airplane mass had.

I don't believe I remember seeing the fuel modeling part before, but wow! Right as soon as the wing structure is broken open, it just pours fuel everywhere inside the building. Fluid modeling has really gotten scary realistic in terms of physics recently. Next time you're watching a movie or a commercial, that fluid being shown moving around might actually be all computerized. Just something to think about.

1. Well the nose is made of composite so it would have been destroyed on impact.

2. The nose, wings, and tail did not make it into the interior core of the building or through the building, as i have stated several times.

3. As shown in another thread with several links, most of the fuel was burned of in the intial explosion and what was left burned off in few minutes.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


He just asked me what I saw in the video. Plain and simple. I just answered his question.

Originally posted by HLR53K
He just asked me what I saw in the video. Plain and simple. I just answered his question.

Yes, me too. I have answered his question many times on this video but he does not want to accept my answers becasue they do not agree with what he thinks.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Looks like we have different viewpoints on the video. But I do see the point he was trying to make when he asked me to describe what I saw and compare it to your statements.

Originally posted by HLR53K
reply to post by ULTIMA1

 

He just asked me what I saw in the video. Plain and simple. I just answered his question.

For the record, I saw what you saw. In addition I tried counting all the columns the plane destroyed as it entered. Needless to say, quite a few were destroyed.

[edit on 4-5-2008 by jfj123]

Originally posted by jfj123
For the record, I saw what you saw. In addition I tried counting all the columns the plane destroyed as it entered. Needless to say, quite a few were destroyed.

Did you see the nose, wings, and tail inside the building?

Yes columns were destroyed but several sources have stateted that the buildings withstood the planes impacts.