Posted on 02/03/2014 9:42:58 AM PST by nickcarraway
“And just how does the shape of a missile differ from the fuselage of an airliner?”
What I meant by that is there was a missle/fuselage hole only. Evidence of wings/engines and tail section was not in the video clips and photographs I was shown.
Some here are saying they know eye witnessess who claim otherwise. Hard to argue with someone who saw it happen.
The surveillance videos are not continuous. They are about two frames per second, so they can’t show the event in any meaningful way.
“Take a class.”
Take a hike.
Bldg 7 came down exactly like it was intentionaly demolished. The fire. shock, debris you describe would not have leveled that struture so perfectly. And scores of people in the demolition and construction business stake their reputations on it. Maybe you are the one not considering facts and the laws of physics.
Okay. I’m actually not interested in going back and forth like this with everyone. When I get a chance I’ll go back and look at the available evidence again, and contact some of the people I spoke to way back when. If I’m wrong I’m wrong.
Besides, we all have bigger fish to fry, if you get my meaning.
Right here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg5NvKpJfKE
Completely debunked by the building engineers, architects and managment along with serious study done by science publications.
The fire came from below and the building itself was heated with in internal heating oil system with several large tanks that also exploded.
“Like it was intentionally demolished” doesn’t make it so. WTC #1 and 2 “looked” the same. Just becuase you don’t have the IQ to comprehend the tragedy don’t shove your silly conspiracies down our throats.
Getting a little emotional, aren’t we Fledermaus? Most liberals get that way when their intellect - or lack thereof - doesn’t measure up.
Take two asprin and call me in the morning.
Sorry, guy, call 'em as I see 'em. If he is in fact a Truther, I rest my case.
Yeah, because with thousands dead across the street and firefighters everywhere looking for survivors, WTC7 was a HUGE priority that day. Give me a break.
All I saw there was a man doing his best to keep his cool in front of young children, in spite of what he has just been told.
Then you remember wrongly. There was a lot of damage to the ground floor. Was there a neat plane-shaped hole? No, nor would you reasonably expect there to be one. Airliners are made of aluminum and other lightweight materials for obvious reasons. Ancillary bits like the wings and stabilizer are not going to punch through a massive concrete structure. They deformed, twisted, fragmented and penetrated the structure through whatever was the path of least resistance. If you remember a clean, round hole with no damage around it, you might be thinking of an 'exit hole' on one of the Pentagon's inside rings, where landing gear punched through.
To take everything at face value, assuming everyone is playing it straight, is willful ignorance.
Fair enough. I don't put it past our government to create a Reichstag-style event to expand their power. But if you wanted to make people believe that a 757 struck the Pentagon, and you have the willingness and means to both carry out an attack and cover up your involvement, why wouldn't you just crash a real 757 into the Pentagon instead of a stupid missile?
Your thinking on this is on par with Rosie O'Donnell's "fire has never melted steel" claims.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.