were we fooled again?

[gruts]

I think this "analysis" of the south tower strike by Andrew Johnson deserves a special mention because IMHO it's almost beyond stupid. but maybe it's just me. take a look and see what you think....


Link

mystery #1 - "the plane hits the front but the biggest explosion comes out of the side"

ok let's think this through....

the plane hits - its fuel tanks rupture - a huge quantity of jetfuel exits the fuel tanks at impact speed and most of it continues through the building in the same direction (along with miscellaneous debris), before crashing through the windows of the adjacent and opposite sides of the wtc - then we see the fireballs.

if you use common sense, it's exactly what you'd expect.



incidentally, this kind of disproves the "missile" theory.

unlike planes, missiles are designed to explode on impact, so if a missile hit the tower you'd expect a big explosion at the impact point. somehow I don't think a missile would crash through the external facade of the wtc without exploding, then somehow divide into 2 and then expolde out of the adjacent and opposite sides of the building.

and if it wasn't a missile or a plane then how on earth was the impact damage created? not to mention the special effects required to fake the exit of thousands of gallons of jetfuel plus debris through the adjacent and opposite sides of the tower - and the fireballs.

and how were the materials required to do this stored on several occupied flooors of the wtc?

mystery #2 - "the delayed fireball"

I'll say it again....

the plane hits - its fuel tanks rupture - a huge quantity of jetfuel exits the fuel tanks at impact speed and most of it continues through the building in the same direction (along with miscellaneous debris), before crashing through the windows of the adjacent and opposite sides of the wtc - then we see the fireballs.

first of all, andrew's 8 slow-mo frames prior to the explosion represent a fraction of a second in real time. secondly, we can't see inside the building while the above is happening so we only see the fireballs when they emerge.

if you use common sense, this very slight delay is exactly what you'd expect.

but in order to make some sort of "point" andrew contrasts what happens when the plane hits the tower with the following 2 scenarios....

1. he shows a clip of a different plane travelling at a much slower speed and hitting a power line, the sparks from which ignite the plane's fuel prior to the plane crashing into the ground.

2. he shows a video of somebody setting fire to a petrol bomb and throwing it down some stairs.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove to anybody with a modicum of common sense, but I must admit that it did make me laugh! jetfuel is not the same as petrol anyway (it's less flammable for a start)....

mystery #3 - why do no planers insist on turning the moment that hundreds of people are dying into a seemingly endless production line of crappy music videos? finding the right musical soundtrack for their highly repetitive youtube offerings seems to be a very important aspect of NPT "research". does watching hundreds of people die over and over again seem somehow "cool" when there's some ambient techno, nu metal or even a golden oldie from the Who tinkling away in the background? it really is asinine....

comments anyone?

[catfish]

[John White]

[catfish]

gruts asked for comments and I gave one. From what I could gather they were designing missiles that could penetrate just about anything with shaped charges and explode in any direction you like, specially designed for whatever specific purpose you want.

[John White]

[chek]

[catfish]

My point is that not all missiles explode on impact.

[chek]

[marky 54]

gruts highlights something important here and something i hope all in the 9/11 community is taking notice of.

it is'nt the NPT theory that is the problem, it is the reluctence by researchers to get facts correct before accusing and pointing fingers, then when people point out the errors they are accused of shill, troll and being a gatekeeper to the truth and are ignored, and then certain researchers continue to promote the theory using examples that are misleading, and whilst fully knowing about the errors in their information as it has been pointed out on numerous occassions.

it aint about people thinking they know it all or being on a ego trip or about thinking the theory is not possible or that people are closeminded.

it is about people proving it in a honest way rather than misleading people to believe something with poor examples and wrong facts.

it puzzles me and concerns me some in the 9/11 community defend such misleading evidence simply because it is something promoting what they believe.

all evidence if wrong regardless of what theory it promotes should be pointed out and not defended or accepted.

i hope some of you realise how hypocritical it would look, the 9/11 truth movement demand the truth about this or that whilst giving an headquarters to disinfo wrong facts and in some cases lies(yes lies because errors have been pointed out yet people still promote them even though it is clearly wrong).

and the errors are not even difficult to spot.

in that case who are we to ask for the truth when we justify lies and distortions ourselves?

if researchers had the honesty to admit when they got something wrong or had a very poor example and took it out of their evidence, i don't think anyone would have a problem at all regardless of if they believed NPT etc or not.

[gruts]

[kc]

I've never heard of bunker busting missiles.

Heard of bunker busting bombs though and the distintion is more than semantics, as the majority of the bunker busting is done with the aid of gravity. I'm out of touch with the technology today, but I know the early models had a modular design based on one module per floor. E.G. if you knew your target was 8 floors down, you would load your ordance with that many modules, one for each floor.

You could concievably retro fit a Durandel but this would most probably have been done by an independant defence contractor who'd want to sell the info on by now.

[gruts]

cheers for the info.

btw I'm no longer surprised that people who promote the idea that no planes hit the wtc towers avoid threads like this one - other than to try and derail them - but I think that does actually tell us something....