WTC7, the smoking gun that just will not go away until the traitors are rounded up

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

What, now you can't even interpret simple illustrations?

You are the one presenting evidence for your Witch Hunt.

Drag your evidence out here for all of us to see, and tell us with confidence, this is my evidence.

So what exactly is wrong with the cable spools ?

edit on 5-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)

I'm not going to argue with a child using playground tactics. Grow up or get lost.

edit on 5-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

You brought up the cable spools. Mind telling us what's wrong with them?

Personally, I think you're just being your usual obnoxious self. But if you insist, since you can't read or refuse to, I'll spell it out for you. The diagram proves that the fuselage would have knocked over at least one of the cable spools, and in my opinion, it would have damaged it, and the wake vortex would have knocked down a couple more, at the very least. But no, they're just standing there upright as if nothing major has just happened. A missile, just like we saw in the five frames, would have cleared them easily and wouldn't have much of a wake vortex to drop them.

Additionally and unrelated to the article, in the real world, if a 757 clips just one light pole, let alone five, it drops like a rock. I saw this on a video somewhere and have not been able to find it, but when I do, you'll get it special delivery.

Now how about the other 8 points of the article?

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
The diagram proves that the fuselage would have knocked over at least one of the cable spools, and in my opinion, it would have damaged it, and the wake vortex would have knocked down a couple more, at the very least. But no, they're just standing there upright as if nothing major has just happened. A missile, just like we saw in the five frames, would have cleared them easily and would have much of a wake vortex to drop them.

Now how about the other 8 points of the article?

The explanation is simple:

The cable spools were sitting next to the generator This is a logical place for them, electrical contractors like to keep their equipment together. When the starboard engine of AA77 slammed through the generator It moved, this pushed the cable spools, which in turn, rolled to the position shown in the photos.

In other words they rolled to their post crash position , after the plane had passed.

Why are Truthers not intelligent enough to figure out something so simple ?

Did you know that wing tip vortices decrease with speed ? You should also look up the difference between static and dynamic thrust.

So which point do you want to discuss next ?

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

You brought up the cable spools. Mind telling us what's wrong with them?

The diagram proves that the fuselage would have knocked over at least one of the cable spools, and in my opinion, it would have damaged it, and the wake vortex would have knocked down a couple more, at the very least. But no, they're just standing there upright as if nothing major has just happened. A missile, just like we saw in the five frames, would have cleared them easily and wouldn't have much of a wake vortex to drop them.

Thanks for posting that explanation, my good chap!

I'll go ahead and repost the image...



AND MY REBUTTAL IMAGE...



as you can see, the first diagram can't be telling the whole story... it tries to reduce a 3 dimensional event to a 2 dimensional image, and fails to account for the fact that the airplane itself need not approach the pentagon at an angle paralell to the earth. As shown in the 2nd diagram, in order to prove such a collision would be necessary, one needs to show the trajectory and attitude of the plane in 3d. Keep in mind that to be really thorough, we'd need an overhead view, too, along with a demonstration of where the cable spools were previous to the impact.

edit to add that the attitude of the jet need not be paralell to the path of travel!

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

as you can see, the first diagram can't be telling the whole story... it tries to reduce a 3 dimensional event to a 2 dimensional image, and fails to account for the fact that the airplane itself need not approach the pentagon at an angle paralell to the earth. As shown in the 2nd diagram, in order to prove such a collision would be necessary, one needs to show the trajectory and attitude of the plane in 3d. Keep in mind that to be really thorough, we'd need an overhead view, too, along with a demonstration of where the cable spools were previous to the impact.

edit to add that the attitude of the jet need not be paralell to the path of travel!

edit on 6/5/2012 by DrEugeneFixer because: (no reason given)

Well, you can dream up whatever you like about the trajectory, but the parking lot five-frames show an approach nowhere near the angle you're suggesting. Additionally, if that was the trajectory the alleged jet came in at, I estimate it would be far too high to clip light poles on the Interstate. Since it clipped FIVE poles, that sucker was coming in pretty straight for quite awhile. Now let's see, what comes in at that speed immune to ground effect and pretty much parallel to the ground? I'll give you a hint: Both Rummy and Roemer said what it was.

Nice try though.....

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


Where was the damage on the ground from the engines? In fact where were the engines, they should have been outside?

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

Downward doesn't correspond with the trajectory of the grey smudge object.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

You brought up the cable spools. Mind telling us what's wrong with them?

The diagram proves that the fuselage would have knocked over at least one of the cable spools, and in my opinion, it would have damaged it, and the wake vortex would have knocked down a couple more, at the very least. But no, they're just standing there upright as if nothing major has just happened. A missile, just like we saw in the five frames, would have cleared them easily and wouldn't have much of a wake vortex to drop them.

Thanks for posting that explanation, my good chap!

I'll go ahead and repost the image...

AND MY REBUTTAL IMAGE...

as you can see, the first diagram can't be telling the whole story... it tries to reduce a 3 dimensional event to a 2 dimensional image, and fails to account for the fact that the airplane itself need not approach the pentagon at an angle paralell to the earth. As shown in the 2nd diagram, in order to prove such a collision would be necessary, one needs to show the trajectory and attitude of the plane in 3d. Keep in mind that to be really thorough, we'd need an overhead view, too, along with a demonstration of where the cable spools were previous to the impact.

edit to add that the attitude of the jet need not be paralell to the path of travel!

edit on 6/5/2012 by DrEugeneFixer because: (no reason given)

You are a joker.

Try this for size;

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


That second pic is not even a 757. The engines on a 757 sit much lower than the body. The one in your pic is a 4 engine plane, much smaller engines, probably a 707.

way to miss the point guys...

hint... the drawing was not precise or to scale... as you would have guessed , if you noticed it was made in MS PAINT

The point is, in order to determine whether one object has struck another, we need its flight path in three dimensions, precise size and shape and position of the objects before the alleged collision. None of you have provided that.

Originally posted by Morg234
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

 

Downward doesn't correspond with the trajectory of the grey smudge object.

What grey smudge? It all looks like a smudge of something. What the heck is this nonsense supposed to be?

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

Originally posted by Morg234
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

 

Downward doesn't correspond with the trajectory of the grey smudge object.

If you watch the ridiculous cctv footage they released for the pentagon you see smoke before this missile even hits the pentagon, is it smoke from the plane that flew over to cover the missile? Or is it smoke from a bomb that went off prior to the missile impact?

The government did a sloppy job with 9/11, sloppy planning, sloppy covering up, and sloppy investigations. The country with the biggest defense budget could not even defend itself on 9/11!! What a joke. If I was an American rax payer I'd ask for a refund because it seems that defense budget is pointless. How many trillions on defense? What a laughing stock they were that day!


What grey smudge? It all looks like a smudge of something. What the heck is this nonsense supposed to be?

The issue of Building 7 is why I have no faith in the masses "waking up" in some large group collective awakening. If Building 7 can't move the masses to think, then I can't see what will? I sometimes can't help thinking the Masons are on to something when they call the uninitiated "the profane?"

Originally posted by kidtwist
If you watch the ridiculous cctv footage they released for the pentagon you see smoke before this missile even hits the pentagon, is it smoke from the plane that flew over to cover the missile? Or is it smoke from a bomb that went off prior to the missile impact?

The government did a sloppy job with 9/11, sloppy planning, sloppy covering up, and sloppy investigations. The country with the biggest defense budget could not even defend itself on 9/11!! What a joke. If I was an American rax payer I'd ask for a refund because it seems that defense budget is pointless. How many trillions on defense? What a laughing stock they were that day!

Well, the plane did hit a bunch of lamp-posts on its way to the pentagon. Smoke might be a result of one of those impacts.

I'm just saying. It's a likely possibility.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by kidtwist
If you watch the ridiculous cctv footage they released for the pentagon you see smoke before this missile even hits the pentagon, is it smoke from the plane that flew over to cover the missile? Or is it smoke from a bomb that went off prior to the missile impact?

The government did a sloppy job with 9/11, sloppy planning, sloppy covering up, and sloppy investigations. The country with the biggest defense budget could not even defend itself on 9/11!! What a joke. If I was an American rax payer I'd ask for a refund because it seems that defense budget is pointless. How many trillions on defense? What a laughing stock they were that day!

Originally posted by Varemia: Well, the plane did hit a bunch of lamp-posts on its way to the pentagon. Smoke might be a result of one of those impacts.

I'm just saying. It's a likely possibility.

I dont see how that is possible, the smoke can been seen in front of the building just prior to the explosion, the lamposts were nowhere near the wall of the building.

The lamposts were part of the plan, they were felled to make it seem like a plane hit them, they have been analysed, and from the evidence gathered they look to have been deliberately staged. Some of the cuts are too perfect, and some seem to be pinched at the bottom, and the witnesses are largely dubious, far too many anonmalies with the street lights, as with everything else.

They had plenty of time to plan this and many things were done to make people think certain things were caused by planes, it's a trick, just like magicians trick people, if you dont reveal the trick, people are easily fooled.

The whole planning was designed to make people think certain things happened and not everyone will bother to question all the facts because they cannot see a way how they could have done certain things, but if you know a bit about psychology, then it's easy to see how people can be fooled.

All you have to do is paint a picture in people's minds, present something the way you want them to perceive it, and they will fill the gaps in with their mind, it's just a con trick, but not all people get fooled by con tricks!

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by kidtwist
If you watch the ridiculous cctv footage they released for the pentagon you see smoke before this missile even hits the pentagon, is it smoke from the plane that flew over to cover the missile? Or is it smoke from a bomb that went off prior to the missile impact?

The government did a sloppy job with 9/11, sloppy planning, sloppy covering up, and sloppy investigations. The country with the biggest defense budget could not even defend itself on 9/11!! What a joke. If I was an American rax payer I'd ask for a refund because it seems that defense budget is pointless. How many trillions on defense? What a laughing stock they were that day!

Well, the plane did hit a bunch of lamp-posts on its way to the pentagon. Smoke might be a result of one of those impacts.

I'm just saying. It's a likely possibility.

Yeah, and white smoke might come from a missile, how about that scenario?

Here's another possibility about those light poles....

The Light Poles: Clipped Or Staged?

frustratingfraud.blogspot.com...

This is an interesting clip, this is a short interview and footage from inside the VDOT Centre (Virginia Department of Transport).

They monitor all the roads, and they say their role is to provide mitigation and increase safety, they say they do not record accidents unless the poilce ask them, and they only record after the event. What would be the point of being requested to record after an accident? Surely recording after an accident is pretty pointless?

They say they only record if requested to, and only after an accident, otherwise they would be continuously be in court?! Why could they just not send a copy of a recording to court as evidence of an accident? Surely this would be beneficial to work out why accidents occur, and would be useful for insurance companies when claims are being decided?

The person in the clip went on to say that after whatever hit the pentagon, the Navy took over the VDOT centre and used it as a command post? Why would they use it as a command post when they had their own security cameras in the pentagon, and why would they need to take the place over if the strike on the pentagon had already occured?

At 0:20 on the left hand side you can see an employee rewinding a recorded piece of video, and although this means nothing it does show that they do record stuff.



However, even though in this clip they say they (VDOT) do not record anything until after the event, they claimed that the FBI did not confiscate any video that day, which is a contradiction to what the FBI said, here is a quote from what the FBI said:

information regarding the closed circuit television (cctv) obtained from Nexcomm/Citgo gas station, and the Virginia Department of Transportation is located in an investigative file which is exempt from disclosure

So it seems that someone isnt telling the truth here?!

Some further reading so people can check out themselves what was said by these two parties...

CCTV FOIA Request reply
www.pagenews.info...

Originally posted by kidtwist
The lamposts were part of the plan, they were felled to make it seem like a plane hit them, they have been analysed, and from the evidence gathered they look to have been deliberately staged. Some of the cuts are too perfect, and some seem to be pinched at the bottom, and the witnesses are largely dubious, far too many anonmalies with the street lights, as with everything else.

This is a damn lie and you know it. You cannot be so sure of this. It is literally impossible for you to make such an assertion. There isn't any proof of it.

Where is your proof? You ignore all the proof the OS has, and then you make up reasons to disbelieve it. It's ridiculous!

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by kidtwist
The lamposts were part of the plan, they were felled to make it seem like a plane hit them, they have been analysed, and from the evidence gathered they look to have been deliberately staged. Some of the cuts are too perfect, and some seem to be pinched at the bottom, and the witnesses are largely dubious, far too many anonmalies with the street lights, as with everything else.

This is a damn lie and you know it. You cannot be so sure of this. It is literally impossible for you to make such an assertion. There isn't any proof of it.

Where is your proof? You ignore all the proof the OS has, and then you make up reasons to disbelieve it. It's ridiculous!

Oooh, judging from the reaction kidtwist, it seems you're getting just a little too close to the truth and you've struck a nerve....

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by kidtwist
The lamposts were part of the plan, they were felled to make it seem like a plane hit them, they have been analysed, and from the evidence gathered they look to have been deliberately staged. Some of the cuts are too perfect, and some seem to be pinched at the bottom, and the witnesses are largely dubious, far too many anonmalies with the street lights, as with everything else.

This is a damn lie and you know it. You cannot be so sure of this. It is literally impossible for you to make such an assertion. There isn't any proof of it.

Where is your proof? You ignore all the proof the OS has, and then you make up reasons to disbelieve it. It's ridiculous!

Oooh, judging from the reaction kidtwist, it seems you're getting just a little too close to the truth and you've struck a nerve....

Yeah, varemia sure does seem a little touchy over my comment on this subject, maybe varemia is suffering from 9/11 information burnout and needs a break?!

It seems varemia is so certain my comment is such a 'lie' I have certainly not ignored the OS 'proof' I have analysed what the OS considers 'proof' and I have done my own research, and analysed other people's research, and I have come to the conclusion that the lightpoles were staged to sell a specific story. I'm entitled to that view varemia, so please refrain from calling me a liar just because you don't agree with my conclusion.

I don't take everything about the OS as truth, maybe you do without question varemia, but I, and many others do not. I have no reason to make up lies, where as the people that want everyone to believe the OS do.

Originally posted by kidtwist
Yeah, varemia sure does seem a little touchy over my comment on this subject, maybe varemia is suffering from 9/11 information burnout and needs a break?!

Nah, I think most of these guys KNOW what really happened because they've been clued in to some varying degrees. Their task is then to steer everyone away from that truth as far as possible, using any and all means of deflection imaginable.

Just so I'm on the record, since kidtwist has posted the fly-by idea, regardless of whether the pic was photoshopped or not, it makes sense of this whole scenario. It answers many questions. For instance, why Cheney was so pissed about being asked every 5 minutes if the orders still stand.... that makes no sense if there was no 757 in the air. And the light poles... well, a 757 could certainly not continue flying after clipping just one of them with its wing.... but how could a missile keep going for that matter? The answer, the friggin' light poles were CD'd!