9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom :: View topic - Aluminium will not cut through steel even at 500mph...

FAQ

Memberlist

Chat

Usergroups

Calendar

Profile

Aluminium will not cut through steel even at 500mph...
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Fallious
Moderate Poster

Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762

Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:33 pm Post subject:

Andrew Johnson wrote:

Still posting the dodgy comparison ay? I've already commented on that one, humpty old boy!

Oh, but you know as well as I do that's just the worst of three comparisons. In every one the NPT advertiser purposefully aligns the towers incorrectly - to mislead any truth seekers. Is that what you are about Andrew?

Perhaps you'd humour ME and post your response here for everyone to see.
_________________
"Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki

Stefan
Banned
Banned

Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219

Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:50 pm Post subject:

Fallicious, I'm not following- are you mocking NPT with those "line ups" or trying to support it? I have never seen a line up that is actually lined up- or even close. _________________ Peace and Truth

Fallious
Moderate Poster

Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762

Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 2:01 pm Post subject:

Koheleth wrote:

Fallicious,
I'm not following- are you mocking NPT with those "line ups" or trying to support it?

I have never seen a line up that is actually lined up- or even close.

Same with these. As you can see the towers are right out of alignment. This is presented as the first comparison in an NPT advertisement, the overlays get slightly more accurate each time - though never anywhere near actual alignment, if they actually did that then the NPT illusion would be broken.

The creator of the movie would have realised that the two camera positions are at very different horizontal and vertical angles, yet continued to produce the video, going so far as to state that the towers are perfectly aligned, and purposefully altering the true position of the plane in one of the clips to move it further apart.

AFAIK Andrew still supports this NPT advertisement video comparison, and has made excuses for it's creators lies.
_________________
"Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki

THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic

Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009

Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 2:17 pm Post subject:

Fallious wrote:

Koheleth wrote:

Fallicious,
I'm not following- are you mocking NPT with those "line ups" or trying to support it?

I have never seen a line up that is actually lined up- or even close.

Even if your alignment theories are correct - they do nothing to disprove no planes - maybe someone just wants to muddy the water

THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic

Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009

Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 2:23 pm Post subject:

Andrew Johnson wrote:

Fallious,

You keep asking the same question and it's already been discussed and posted. Your response has been to compare free range eggs and slate roofs.

Your may think I'm "cracked" or eggcentric but methinks you have egg on your face - and at least from a jokes point of view, this thread could run and run.

I'm enjoying it so far. TSWU3, wouldn't you eggree?

I agree but omletting fallious know he's wrong

Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster

Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 2:31 pm Post subject:

Fallious wrote:

AFAIK Andrew still supports this NPT advertisement video comparison, and has made excuses for it's creators lies.

Well, you're not keeping up with the posts I made - you seem to be so desparate in posting your own stuff. I said I wasn't 100% happy with that evidence but I think your post distorts this evidence.

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=42952#42952

Quote:

Check out the RealityDown wiki, and the NPT Lies Exposed article, Andrew Johnson doesn't want you to read!

LOL - You are getting desperate! I want everybody to read that stuff and everything else. If they find an explanation for the "delayed fireball", then I'd be happy to hear it! All the explanations posted so far are incorrect.

Have fun, Fallacious old boy! I am! I really love it when people specifically attach my names to things - when I am nobody with no reason for anyone to believe what I say. They just make their own minds up, rather than someone trying to force point of view down their throats.
_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!

Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic

Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201

Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:29 pm Post subject:

Andrew Johnson wrote:

If they find an explanation for the "delayed fireball", then I'd be happy to hear it! All the explanations posted so far are incorrect.

Well that's just your opinion isn't it Andrew?

I personally see the NPT as a circular specious device to confuse readers and pull them into a mire of self-doubt and chaos which in tern will then cause them to stop investigating the events of 911!
_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE<

Fallious
Moderate Poster

Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762

Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:32 pm Post subject:

Andrew Johnson wrote:

Fallious wrote:

AFAIK Andrew still supports this NPT advertisement video comparison, and has made excuses for it's creators lies.

Quote:

Check out the RealityDown wiki, and the NPT Lies Exposed article, Andrew Johnson doesn't want you to read!

You foiled me with that delayed fireball! Now, if you'll just post your reasoning for claiming why it's NOT exactly what's to be expected then you'll be one (VERY large) step closer to convincing me that NPT is indeed correct. Gonna do that for me? Hmm? Or you just gonna throw some more turd around?... Ok, turds fine. Forget I mentioned it.

Quote:

Have fun, Fallacious old boy! I am! I really love it when people specifically attach my names to things - when I am nobody with no reason for anyone to believe what I say. They just make their own minds up, rather than someone trying to force point of view down their throats.

Yeah, after all you are just the most active moderator on here. You are quite content to let every NPT post stand, no matter where it's posted, no matter what utterly unrelated thread it's in response to. Not to mention your giddy little relationship with TTW3U3, allowing his vial language, disruptive posts and pretty much 100% record of worthless posts.

You recently said (just after you began your smear campaign against me) that you weren't particularly enamoured with being a moderator... Why put us through any more misery?
_________________
"Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki

Last edited by Fallious on Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:35 pm; edited 1 time in total

rodin
Validated Poster

Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK

Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:32 pm Post subject:

Andrew Johnson wrote:

Fallious wrote:

AFAIK Andrew still supports this NPT advertisement video comparison, and has made excuses for it's creators lies.

Quote:

Check out the RealityDown wiki, and the NPT Lies Exposed article, Andrew Johnson doesn't want you to read!

I categorically and logically refute the NPT theory. Do you or anyone else want to challenge these statements?

1. The blue screen theory is bogus because there is plenty of amateur footage and stills showing plane @ WTC. (Note - I exclude the Pentagon from this - I suspect an airliner did not hit it)

2. The hologram theory is bogus because holograms are made by projecting light beams to create an illusion. The additional laser light results in an image brighter than the background. The aircraft in question is darker than the background.

3. Was it 'something else'. Yes. Digital imaging at low resolution can cause the effect of the disappearing wing for instance. I know about this because I work with digital audio and the principle is the same.

(Google'aliasing' and 'anti-aliasing' for more details on 3)
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com

THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic

Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009

Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 4:07 pm Post subject:

rodin wrote:

Andrew Johnson wrote:

Fallious wrote:

AFAIK Andrew still supports this NPT advertisement video comparison, and has made excuses for it's creators lies.

Quote:

Check out the RealityDown wiki, and the NPT Lies Exposed article, Andrew Johnson doesn't want you to read!

I don't get it

Fallious
Moderate Poster

Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762

Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 4:12 pm Post subject:

So explain why, please. _________________ "Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell \| RealityDown wiki

Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster

Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 5:01 pm Post subject:

Fallious wrote:

So explain why, please.

I have explained the bits I am interested in. I think that TV fakery looks fairly likely here, but I haven't studied it to the level of detail that some have, so I haven't really commented on it here all that much, or on other threads. This is why I keep repeating the "delayed fireball" evidence. But some people want to divert the discussion. I wonder why.

Quote:

Check out the RealityDown wiki, and the NPT Lies Exposed article that Andrew Johnson desperately wants you to read!

Thanks for diligently changing your signature - but I don't know why you wish to put words into my mouth. I don't desperately want people to read anything in particular, so your statement is false. They can read it if they wish - it really doesn't bother me either way. The actions of some posters on these threads however, do bother me a bit more.
_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!

Fallious
Moderate Poster

Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762

Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 6:13 pm Post subject:

Andrew Johnson wrote:

Fallious wrote:

So explain why, please.

I have explained the bits I am interested in.

O...K.. but I was nudging TTWSU3. Who - i'm not sure you noticed - just quoted 309 words, so he could present us with: "I don't get it".

Quote:

I think that TV fakery looks fairly likely here, but I haven't studied it to the level of detail that some have, so I haven't really commented on it here all that much, or on other threads. This is why I keep repeating the "delayed fireball" evidence. But some people want to divert the discussion. I wonder why.

Great! And you've mentioned it many many times, and it's been debunked in a few sentences every time. I don't understand why you keep bringing it up and saying those debunking are unreasonable when you don't have any evidence to the contrary.

It explodes as it should, prove why it doesn't.

I haven't seen anyone trying to divert the discussion. As far as i've seen, in every instance you've mentioned the fireball it's been addressed. I asked you just a few posts back to provide proof that this fireball is not what we should expect. As moulder would say, "I want to believe", but throw me a bone (I said that last bit).

Quote:

Check out the RealityDown wiki, and the NPT Lies Exposed article that Andrew Johnson desperately wants you to read!

Bless you for being bothered by some posters, I assume it's me! However, a quick look at the posting history of TTWSU3 reads like a layman's guide to forum destruction - but you have to spend every waking hour bailing the fool out, when you should just agree with the other moderators and kick him.
_________________
"Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki

Last edited by Fallious on Mon Dec 18, 2006 6:18 pm; edited 2 times in total

rodin
Validated Poster

Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK

Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 6:14 pm Post subject: Calling all who still support the No Plane @ WTC to Refute-

I would ask any NPT supporter reading this to challenge my debunking arguments. 1. The blue screen theory is bogus because there is plenty of amateur footage and stills showing plane @ WTC. Also since so many people were watching it would be illogical 2. The hologram theory is bogus because holograms are made by projecting light beams to create an illusion. The additional laser light results in an image brighter than the background. The aircraft in question is darker than the background. 3. The artifacts atributed to the above are actually due to artifacts intoduced by the digital recording process. Digital imaging at low resolution can cause the effect of the disappearing wing for instance. A/D and D/A conversions create errors. This is why CD players have error correction. I know about this because I work with digital audio and the principle is the same as for video. So you see the two alternative NPT theories are proven to be incredible, while a simple technical explanation for what you see on video is available. Why then introduce science fiction? (Google 'aliasing' and 'anti-aliasing' for more details on 3) As I say, if I am missing something please point it out. I would like to see us abandon what I consider to be an embarrasment once and for all, and would like to think that the points I make are strong enough to do this. _________________ Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com

Fallious
Moderate Poster

Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762

Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 6:23 pm Post subject: Re: Calling all who still support the No Plane @ WTC to Refu

rodin wrote:

logical stuff.... again...

Well, you already said that once and I think you've seen how an NPTist reacts to logic. You really got to beat them with it. If nothing else, it gets them to shut up for a while.

BTW, the 'blue screen' comment is a bit of an easy get out clause (surprised TTWSU3 didn't pull you up on it.. oh no i'm not). By far the simplest way to implant fake planes is to use a virtual mapping tool, and implant the planes in respect to a particular marker. This has to be high contrast and in all shots.

NPT's just FYI, this is why the 'flight path' anomalies you claim to find are always debunked. Even if aircraft were inserted later, it would be impossible for them to be out of place if the editors were using the marker system. Which as I noted is by far, by FAR the most likely (convincing, simple and fast) solution.
_________________
"Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki

rodin
Validated Poster

Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK

Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 6:35 pm Post subject: Re: Calling all who still support the No Plane @ WTC to Refu

Fallious wrote:

rodin wrote:

logical stuff.... again...

Well, you already said that once and I think you've seen how an NPTist reacts to logic. You really got to beat them with it. If nothing else, it gets them to shut up for a while.

Cannot NPT-ers reason then? Is David an NPT-er?

There are only 2 types of NPT-ers IMO

1) Deluded and definitely scientifically challenged
2) Sh..... you know who

Is there a 3)?
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com

Fallious
Moderate Poster

Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762

Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:06 pm Post subject: Re: Calling all who still support the No Plane @ WTC to Refu

rodin wrote:

Fallious wrote:

rodin wrote:

logical stuff.... again...

Well, you already said that once and I think you've seen how an NPTist reacts to logic. You really got to beat them with it. If nothing else, it gets them to shut up for a while.

Cannot NPT-ers reason then? Is David an NPT-er?

There are only 2 types of NPT-ers IMO

1) Deluded and definitely scientifically challenged
2) Sh..... you know who

Is there a 3)?

As far as I've seen, NPTists are not interested in arguments of logic, motive or means. When presented with a visual or audio debunking of their theories they admit a small defeat, but say it's a minor point in their overall theory. How minor is debatable, considering NPT is wholly ABOUT the plane images we've seen being not what they appear. Anyway...

As you note, the theory hangs on three mutable strings - photographic manipulation, holograms and when they are really backed into a corner, 'not big boeings'. They present evidence (however un scientific it's analysis may be) which usually (if not definitively) supports one part while debunking the others.

I think there are certainly wilfully ignorant NPTists. I'd put Andrew in this category (lucky him). For the other two opinions I think you are right on, shills or just plain dense. I tend to assume stupidity before shill though, it's far more common in general. Laughing

_________________
"Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki

THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic

Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009

Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:38 pm Post subject:

show me just one clear image where the livery of the plane can be seen? http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html

telecasterisation
Banned
Banned

Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:45 pm Post subject:

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:

show me just one clear image where the livery of the plane can be seen?

http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html

Given the way events unfolded, no-one was prepared for the forthcoming events, so high-quality equipment was not positioned to capture additional planes - as far the world was concernedit was a one-off.

In an ideal world, supplying what you request would be simple, but you must accept that it doesn't exist. Just like I know of the existence of giant squid - I cannot supply you with a live one.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC

THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic

Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009

Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 8:51 pm Post subject:

telecasterisation wrote:

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:

show me just one clear image where the livery of the plane can be seen?

http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html

No high quality equipment - are you saying that ABC and CNN did not have any quality equipment that day?

telecasterisation
Banned
Banned

Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 9:04 pm Post subject:

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:

telecasterisation wrote:

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:

show me just one clear image where the livery of the plane can be seen?

http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html

No high quality equipment - are you saying that ABC and CNN did not have any quality equipment that day?

You misunderstand the terminology.

Broadcast quality is not specifically 'high'. High magification cameras capable of rendering distant fast moving objects are not standard fair for mobile news teams. You only have to look at the footage captured of the things we can be sure of, the holes in the buildings.

I have seen no razor sharp images of the people standing in the holes in the buildings, or even the holes themselves and they were at exactly the same height as the aircraft. The holes were static and there for considerably longer - yet despite the cameras being stabilized - the quality is still remarkably poor. Now add the additional element of surprise, a fast moving subject, there and gone in a flash. Most of the footage available will be from shoulder mounted equipment, chosen for its ability to move freely without the problems associated with parking and blocking access.

I acknowledge your stab at incredulity and wordplay, but both are misplaced.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC

THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic

Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009

Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 9:29 pm Post subject:

telecasterisation wrote:

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:

telecasterisation wrote:

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:

show me just one clear image where the livery of the plane can be seen?

http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html

No high quality equipment - are you saying that ABC and CNN did not have any quality equipment that day?

Well that's strange because on a recent posting tests were done with cheap digital equipment and clear images of planes were captured.

Fallious
Moderate Poster

Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762

Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 9:31 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Well that's strange because on a recent posting tests were done with cheap digital equipment and clear images of planes were captured.

Link, please.
_________________
"Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki

Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster

Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 9:40 pm Post subject:

Fallious wrote:

Hmm - you seem to be spending a lot of time trying to say things about posters like me and TSWU3. We're not really worth it you know.

How about explaining the delayed fireball? How can fuel in wing and fuselage fail to ignite when travelling at 300-500 mph. That's what really concerns me. Some people seem to think a vacuum was created around the plane or something - or there wasn't enough air for the fuel to burn. These are all very strange contraventions of the laws of physics.

Everyone else can argue about resolutions, frame rates, CGI overlays, relative strength of materials - the fireball is "my favourite"

See ya, Fally Pally!
_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!

Fallious
Moderate Poster

Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762

Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 10:10 pm Post subject:

Andrew Johnson wrote:

Fallious wrote:

Hmm - you seem to be spending a lot of time trying to say things about posters like me and TSWU3. We're not really worth it you know.

Still trying to avoid the awkward truth? In the same thread that TTWSU3 has made two of his most worthless contributions yet (waiting on that picture link). TTWSU3 most certainly isn't worth the effort, but I believe the quality of discussion in the forums is.

Quote:

How about explaining the delayed fireball?

You are the one with the theory, so the responsibility to find corroborating evidence is yours. My area of expertise is digital production and i've provided plenty of input in these areas, both for and against NPT.

Quote:

How can fuel in wing and fuselage fail to ignite when travelling at 300-500 mph. That's what really concerns me. Some people seem to think a vacuum was created around the plane or something - or there wasn't enough air for the fuel to burn. These are all very strange contraventions of the laws of physics.

Says you. Yet far more qualified folks on these very forums have flatly stated that these ARE likely factors in the fireball delay.

Quote:

Everyone else can argue about resolutions, frame rates, CGI overlays, relative strength of materials - the fireball is "my favourite"

GREAT, so why not go learn something about it so you can prove the impossibility of it. Rather than sitting around telling other people their theories are wrong?
_________________
"Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki

Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster

Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 10:22 pm Post subject:

Fallious wrote:

GREAT, so why not go learn something about it so you can prove the impossibility of it. Rather than sitting around telling other people their theories are wrong?

Back to me again is it? It's not up to me to prove anything. It's up to readers to decide what they think is correct. I already pointed out several times I am not an authority on anything (except maybe a knowledge of basic physical laws). I thought I made it clear. On the videos of the 2nd impact we see:

1) Plane crash
2) Fireball exploding out of tower.

These are the facts and not theories. There have been several theories posted on here to explain these basic facts and none of them properly line up with the known laws of physics. It's actually very similar to the CD of the towers - the pat theories (e.g. pancake collapse) do not line up with the known laws of physics.

The theories posted to explain the delayed fireball are wrong not just because "I say so" but because they contravene basic physical laws. I have made tried to make this quite clear already.

So I still don't know what the video shows for sure. What I do know is that it doesn't show a passenger-filled or regular 7x7 filled with fuel and that's a big anomaly, n'est ce pas. I don't feel I can contribute anything else useful because of the style of posting on these threads. Forgive, but when I make a comparison between metal lumps hitting girders at high speed and getting people to think about the effect and someone comes back posting about eggs and slate roofs, I can't really take the discussion seriously.

Actually, can we go back to the egg jokes? I was getting more out of the thread then!
_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!

Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster

Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 10:35 pm Post subject:

[quote="Fallious"] Says you. Yet far more qualified folks on these very forums have flatly stated that these ARE likely factors in the fireball delay.[quote] Oh! Who is "more qualified" and what is/are their qualification(s)? Please let me know as I haven't noticed anyone posting proof of their qualifications. In any case, you don't need qualifications to see the fireball delay - and there is no reason for it to happen. _________________ Andrew Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!

telecasterisation
Banned
Banned

Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 10:37 pm Post subject:

Fallious wrote:

Quote:

Well that's strange because on a recent posting tests were done with cheap digital equipment and clear images of planes were captured.

Link, please.

Agreed, I would like to see this too.

It is unusual for commercial aircraft to fly at the speed and height just before impact. How was this duplicated?

Couple this with the element of surprise and rendering sharp images is not easy. As everyone keeps saying about the second impact - everyone was apparently looking in the other direction when it happened.

I note that no-one has supplied any really sharp footage of subjects that you would assume would be easy to capture with pristine rendering - such as a tower that didn't move (well at least for a while).
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC

John White
Site Admin

Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 10:49 pm Post subject:

[quote="Andrew Johnson"][quote="Fallious"]
Says you. Yet far more qualified folks on these very forums have flatly stated that these ARE likely factors in the fireball delay.

Quote:

Oh! Who is "more qualified" and what is/are their qualification(s)? Please let me know as I haven't noticed anyone posting proof of their qualifications.

In any case, you don't need qualifications to see the fireball delay - and there is no reason for it to happen.

Perhpas a more accurate statement would be that you personally accept no reason that has been presented for it to happen andrew?

Equally, I don't accept the practicality of affixing shaped charges to the outer walls of the towers to explosively simulate perfect plane shaped holes for Planes that were not there
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World

Fallious
Moderate Poster

Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762

Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 10:51 pm Post subject:

Andrew Johnson wrote:

[ramble, ramble bullsh*t etc]

The theories posted to explain the delayed fireball are wrong not just because "I say so" but because they contravene basic physical laws. I have made tried to make this quite clear already.*

[ramble, ramble, more bullsh*t]

Actually, can we go back to the egg jokes? I was getting more out of the thread then!

* That's not to say this isn't rambling bullsh*t, but this is slightly funnier bullsh*t than normal.

Basic physics prove the fireball should take as long as it does.. There. that's productive isn't it? We'll just talk statements at each other, rather than actually researching anything to prove ourselves right or wrong. There was me thinking the point of the forum was to discuss the merits of particular articles and theories.

Ok, now you can get back to what you do best.
_________________
"Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki

Display posts from previous:

	9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Page 4 of 6

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum