Great smoking gun evidence on the floors that were hit on 911!

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by hdutton

A kind of odd thing about lead.

Not only does it melt at reasonably low temperatures @ 450 to 500 degrees. It will not get much hotter reguardless how much heat you put under it.

The boiling point of lead is 1'750 C, Obviously this temperature can be obtained, otherwise we wouldn't know what it's boiling point is.

There was also a lot of copper connecting the batteries together. Copper defiantly glows when heated.
There was also carbon fiber fragments from the aircraft. Carbon fiber glows a very nice yellow when heated.

I guess that's what I get for relying on experience and a faulty memory.

I did a quick check and found at Wiki-pedia that lead melts @ 621.43 F and boils @ 3180 F. So I stand corrected. I must admit, I had very little reasons to ever boil lead, making sinkers, so On this point I was way off. Other wise it would appear the scales you use makes some things sound very different.

But as I think of it, the burning jet fuel, in open air, should not have been enough to boil either the lead or the copper.

If it were the molten metals from the batteries, would it not pour from more than one area of the floor. It does appear there were several places available for this to happen.

reply to post by hdutton


I too just came to this other conclusion on the contents of the batteries...When melted if filled with thermite or who knows, something(maybe hot battery acid can do some damage) could probably eat straight through anything below weakening all structure around and below causing internal structure faults possibly giving the building enough damage within to make it collapse upon itself...

..Plus how did the terrorists know the exact coordinates to these locations from hundreds of miles away in a new country and airspace?..

Wish i could create proxy # for my companies...

Originally posted by plube
I am a truther...and i am proud to be one...I have no fear from the negative connotations of the term....but I do not look at things blindly and i do my own work on issues...so i have done this....and i ask you...does this come close to fitting the pattern....just asking your opinion.

all is done to scale off the plans from the 80th floor...i did not do a complete rendition of the entire building as collapse initiation was above the 80th floor.

I ardently consider 9/11 to be treated as a crime scene...NOT a TERRORIST act.

there is no war on terror...there is only war.

edit on 053131p://f09Monday by plube because: (no reason given)

I'm not sure if your post here was in any way a response to mine though it did appear directly below mine etc.

But in any case I'd like to use your fantastic diagrams if I may. Especially the second one.

I was reading a rant post today that complained that there was a real lack of proof and mostly opinions about things with a nod to the 9/11 forum. That's my thing lately too. What can we show with some kind of actual evidence? And if it's actual evidence what can be concluded from it?

I will attempt here, using in part your diagrams, to illustrate what I think is actual evidence that anyone can examine and come to a conclusion about. I hope that everyone interested in 9/11, truth, and actual evidence will all play along.

Your second diagram is great I think (not that the first one isn't) in showing EXACTLY what I've been going on about with my animated avatar pic and my most recent dozen or so posts. I thank you for posting them.

Now let us all look at it please. Everyone pull up a chair.

You have represented the whole thing brilliantly, see how in the second diagram the fuselage is penetrating the building pretty far, the very start of the wings are at the building face and the left and right engines both appear to be touching the face of the wall. Your diagram at this point clearly shows what I have said repeatedly. And that is that the engines on the wings of a 767 are actually ahead of the "wingtips".

This, btw, is shown beautifully in your diagram.

Now considering this (everyone) would you say that it is a FACT based on a 767's design that the engines of the plane would impact the face of the tower (on a straight nose in approach) BEFORE the respective wing tips would? Yes or No?

Of course it's YES. As the diagram shows.

Now what would everyone say, considering the previous established FACT, if I showed you all a diagram or two of the wing tips hitting the face of the North Tower and causing damage, BEFORE the engines on those same wings did?

Would you all say and think that was pretty "whacked?"

Of course you would. How would that even look? How would that even be physically possible?

I dare say I'm confident that if I presented you with a diagram that showed the wing tips impacting the tower BEFORE the engines on the very same wings you all would catch me out on it. You would all say I'm being ridiculous and that it is physically impossible (just as your diagram shows).

Isn't that right? Ok. Good.

So, to recap, if I were to produce and present to you a diagram of Flight 11 impacting the North Tower where the wing tips hit the building before the engines on the very same wings, on a more or less nose hit straight in trajectory, you'd all tell me to get out of here!! (Lol)

Yeah, well what if instead of a diagram showing the wing tips hitting before the engines I show you A VIDEO!

"Huh? What?! You got a video of something that shows THAT?" You'd all say.

"Yes, Yes I do indeed," I would say.

I contend that the Naudet 'Fireman's Video' shows EXACTLY THAT. The video shows the right "wing tip" impacting the face of the North Tower BEFORE the right engine on the very same wing!!

And if you all have been following along we all know that's what? That's right - "IMPOSSIBLE!"

Impossible.

So that's what my animated gif avatar pic is about, but if you find that too inadequate and you want to investigate it yourself, head on out to the web and get the best copy of the Naudet first hit you can find and work through it a frame at a time. If you (anyone) can debunk my assertion based on the reasoning and evidence I present here in this post I'd be happy to hear it.

The conclusion I draw is it's physically impossible for the right wing gash on the North Tower to have been made by the wing of a 767 aircraft for the reason that I state. That there is no physical way possible for the right wing tip to impact the face of the North Tower before the right engine, considering the design of a 767 and the way it went straight in.

Now if the right wing gash wasn't made by the wing of a 767 it's likely that the left side gash wasn't either, and as for all the talk of "jet fuel" well, let's just leave all that for another post shall we?


Cheers

reply to post by NWOwned


it is a good description of what is occurring and your more than welcome to use any and all work that i present....I do all things freely and am willing to do changes if you have any requests....keep on searching ....because if we just give up then nothing will be accomplished....I have been here awhile now...the Truthers names are always changing....while the Debunkers are always the same ten.

yet according to the same ten debunkers truthers are a disappearing bunch....not sure how they figure that out.

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by NWOwned

 

it is a good description of what is occurring and your more than welcome to use any and all work that i present....I do all things freely and am willing to do changes if you have any requests....keep on searching ....because if we just give up then nothing will be accomplished....I have been here awhile now...the Truthers names are always changing....while the Debunkers are always the same ten.

yet according to the same ten debunkers truthers are a disappearing bunch....not sure how they figure that out.

That's great plube, I was hoping you'd say something like that and I'll tell you why.

I was thinking a couple of weeks ago about how to popularize and spread my little devastating evidence based 9/11 anomaly so that I would not have to work too hard at it repeating myself over and over in different posts and on different forums etc. I like how you can type a post then go to bed, sign in next day and see you got a couple stars from people who got something out of what you wrote while you were asleep.

I like sleeping so I need to find a way to reach people while I sleep. Lol

That's in part why I made my animated avatar gif, as soon as I made it it went up on 150 of my posts. I even try now to post in other forums than 9/11 (don't want to be accused of only posting in here!) so that people in the aliens thread might see my avatar and then come to the 9/11 forum and read a few of my posts.

But that reach is tiny.

I thought of making a Powerpoint presentation but I don't want to stand there and talk or do the "Hearings" circuit. And I don't want to be on camera like Alex Jones or Ace Baker, yell and scream and write awful songs.

So what to do?

I got on the web and came across xtranormal Desktop Beta, if you haven't yet check it out. It's a text to animated movie engine. You can set up an animated character in a setting of your choice and the character you choose moves and gestures and speaks the words that you type.

It's wicked.

They give you 300 credits to spend on sets and characters, and here is the crazy wicked part, for 150 credits you can buy a theater set with a giant screen that you can import JPG and AVI clips to (AVIs play fully), and so I bought the blue one.

Next, you can spend your free credits on characters. There are different ones for different amounts. There is one though for 150 credits called Hollywood Trainwreck and it's Charlie Sheen! So get this I bought the Charlie Sheen looking character and placed him in a blue theater setting backdrop with a giant screen I can put text, JPGs and play AVIs on all while he gestures and moves and says whatever I type up!

I have created an animated virtual truther! Who will get the message across to people while I sleep.

I created a rough version 6.0 so far but I just used what diagrams I could find on the web and what I'd really like to do plube is use your diagrams in this little animated movie and give you a credit at the end. What do you think? It's basically a telling of my above post but done in a cool blue theater by a character that looks and sounds like Charlie Sheen. lol

I used a screen shot from the Purdue animation to begin because I wanted to contrast their animation with the Naudet clip this being the basis of the entire 6 minute presentation. But I was wondering about copyright stuff, could probably get by with Fair Use, but I'd like to put it up on youtube eventually and I don't want there to be any issues with it. Using your diagrams would be great. I think it could cause an influx of people to ATS even and give the debunkers more work to do.

It currently hangs together pretty well with the lousy hack job I did on the diagrams but I was thinking how to make it better?

Better diagrams would help a lot.

I set up the narration to first show the plane touching the building from the left side (Purdue), then I talk about and show the Naudet info, then I use a plan view JPG of a 767, a line drawing with white background and black text and then I use 6 JPGs in quick load succession to show the action of the 'plane' entering the the building, first starting half a plane away and then going in in sequence only up to the wing tips, which shows they cause damage last compared to the engines etc.

So to replace my hack job with your diagrams I'd use your second one above and would need a single one plan view of an entire 767 with some detail to show engines in front of wing tips. And a 6 series either set of JPGs or a small AVI that shows the plane entering the face of the tower up to the wing tips.

I was thinking a thread could be started for videos and movies and presentations made by ATSers. I was thinking of doing 10 6 or so minute clips of my guy doing different aspects of 9/11 and then string it all together like a virtual hearing.

Anyway, let me know.

Cheers