Self Evident. Proof of Twin Tower CD = Remote Controlled, Swapped-in, Military Drone Aircraft on 9/1

reply to post by randyvs


It is Appropriate for the HOAX Forum I Guess . I mean , after All , 9/11 WAS a HOAX ...............")

Zanti Misfit
reply to post by randyvs

 

It is Appropriate for the HOAX Forum I Guess . I mean , after All , 9/11 WAS a HOAX ...............")

No some peoples understanding of it was a hoax, ie people with no idea of structures, construction and loadings on the structure because of the impacts or the simple fact the the thermal induced loads due to fire were not really taken into account during building design only simple assumptions were made, all that changed a few years after this event.

reply to post by wmd_2008


OK , you lost me there . Could you be a little More Vague ? .......

Zanti Misfit
reply to post by randyvs

 

It is Appropriate for the HOAX Forum I Guess . I mean , after All , 9/11 WAS a HOAX ...............")

Agreed. It should have gotten 'movie of the year'.
Media fakery is the one area still frowned upon almost everywhere.
It is not what you can talk about that leads you to 9/11 truth,
but what you cannot.

It is all theatre, and HOAX sums it up nicely.

I'm a little late to this party. Although I can't endorse the remote-controlled military plane theory presented here, I would like to comment on this statement:

wmd_2008
There is NO cd evidence

There's a word missing from the above statement: "physical". There is no physical CD evidence that we are aware of. But physical evidence is not the only type of evidence.

There's audio evidence, video evidence, witness testimony, all depicting signs of controlled demolition, and none depicting signs of fire-induced collapse.

Just because there's a lack of physical evidence, that doesn't mean it didn't happen that way.


I'll give an example: Someone is caught on camera and seen by multiple witnesses stabbing another to death. When that someone goes to court, the judge decides to kick the case because the physical murder weapon is missing. Even though this someone was caught on camera and seen by multiple witnesses, he gets set free because there's no physical weapon.

That's just not the way it works in the real world. People have been convicted of murder without the physical murder weapon, or even the physical body for that matter.



The lack of physical demolition parts does not dismiss the demolition theory when all other sources of evidence still point to controlled demolition.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


en.wikipedia.org...

The above is something i recall hearing years back. In the 9/11 photo's you show, what started to burn at the front of the plane???

By the way, you have the Bravest Firemen in the World. Told to stay away from the buildings, they ignored such and truly Risk their own lives to see who they could save/rescue. They must Never be forgot.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

learn from it whatever there is to be learned

When we look with hindsight at the event, there are things that cannot be explained with conventional technology.

One of these issues is in plain sight.



A 700' high core column turns to dust.

Here it is from a live broadcast.

Steel to dust defies conventional technology.

Some people see this evidence. Others do not. They see things like video hoax. Or normal gravity.

Of course I may be wrong. Others may be right. If I am proved wrong, I will cheerfully yield. I am motivated to find the truth. Not to win a game.

But what I see in the video is steel core columns turning into dust. Indeed, the steel "evaporates" faster than gravity would have pulled the whole top of the column out of view in the video frames. The remaining "dust" continues to evaporate before our eyes.

But there is lots more evidence if you care to look with an open mind.

If your reply includes an attack on the messenger, as so frequently is the only way some members ignorant of debate style know how to respond, I will not respond. Just go ahead and agree amongst yourselves that the messenger is bogus because you see something different. A group can form a consensus and still be wrong.

reply to post by steaming


It was a static discharge. Aircraft build up impressive static charges as they fly. They're usually not seen because the plane grounds when it lands.

In this case the aircraft had nowhere to ground, and was close enough to the building for it to jump from the nose to the building just prior to impact.

reply to post by Zaphod58


"Thank You".

steaming
In the 9/11 photo's you show, what started to burn at the front of the plane???

If you're talking about the flash:





That is the crew oxygen bottle igniting:

Full-size PDF here


If you watch any video from that angle, you'll see the flash come from the exact location as the oxygen bottle.

reply to post by leostokes


Leo, I'm not sure why people are still trying to peddle that hoax. Anyone who watches the video can clearly see those columns fall straight down and leave the dust that was on them hanging in the air. Dust is lighter than steel columns. Dust takes longer to fall down than the columns do.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


It's hard to tell where it's coming from easily at that angle, but I stand by static charge. If it was the oxygen system where is the debris it would have blown off? An oxygen bottle going up is usually pretty violent, and should have at least knocked some pieces of panel off.

reply to post by _BoneZ_

_BoneZ_
I'm a little late to this party. Although I can't endorse the remote-controlled military plane theory presented here, I would like to comment on this statement:

I don't understand this part BoneZ.

Do you presume that the buildings were prepped for demo, in particular one commencing around the anticipated impact area/level, and then relied upon successful hijackings to get the job done?

You must be advocating for a remote takeover of the originating flights while in progress..?

It could not have occurred via a hacking of the flight computers, given the very tight flight control observed, so the regular commercial aircraft would have had to have been retrofitted in advanced with the remote control avionics, something that a commercial pilot might be apt to notice, plus it involves more logistics, and more people.

Why don't you think there was a shell game of plane swapping going on.

I point also to the fireball magnitude "shock and awe" display, although it's hard to draw a comparison to what size it ought to have been.

Are you saying that you think am ace pilot hijacker was flying that plane, to hit the building by anticipation at just the right level? I'm confused.

This is all predicated once again, on the absolute undeniable evidence and proof that the buildings were destroyed by explosives (see the steel building photo, and the laws of motion and note again how the buildings went down to within a few seconds of absolute freefall from the same height for any freely dropped object in nothing but air alone).

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Yes it was the 'Flash' at the front that I asked about. Always wondered how such is in fact suppied etc. Hve never Flown , but throughout the years did build models of different planes. The only inflammable I ever thought about is of course the Fuel in the wings.

When 9/11 happened, I did recall the age old news about one large USA Military plane flying into the Empire State Building - hence the above en.wikipedia. - Had not thought about possible static charge build-up and did not know about the Oxygen supply you mentioned. So again "Thank You" to all for explaining. Will simply keep reading as ATS supplies a perfected sort of Library.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Have you looked at the FDR data from the two recovered black boxes? Flight 77, and 93 were anything but "tight". They were sloppy and constantly making corrections.

_BoneZ_

If you're talking about the flash:

Here's the best slo-mo video I've been able to find showing that

reply to post by Zaphod58


Flight 77, you mean the one that ace pilot Hani Hanjour was allegedly flying? You're aware of the approach maneuver he purportedly made of course, how "sloppy"...

reply to post by Zaphod58


There doesn't need to be panels knocked off. It would depend on the direction of the force of the blast. There are many different angles of that shot and the flash comes from the exact area of the oxygen bottle.

Not to mention that pilots agree with the oxygen bottle as well. That's where I got the image and PDF from in the first place.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


I see you bothered to look at the FDR from the flight. That "ace turn" he made that everyone points to was one massive uncoordinated turn where he couldn't even hold altitude through the turn. He was all over the place through it.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


I get that it does, but I've heard of oxygen bottle explosions tearing a plane apart. I've never seen one that wasn't violent enough to blow the panels around the bottle apart, at a minimum.