IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
St. Nicholas And The Amazing Flying Wall Panel, North tower panel found near St. Nicholas was a mockup

yankee451
post Sep 12 2014, 03:10 AM
Post #1





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 91
Joined: 22-June 13
Member No.: 7,427



New video - the NYPD are exposed (again) for being part and parcel to the 9/11 operation.

Video link:
http://youtu.be/vSi_9S-S6kI

Transcript:

Hi, Steve De’ak here. It’s September 11 2014 and we’re now 13 years into the war on terror – still with no end in sight.

In honor of the day I’d like to share one of the more ridiculous chapters of the Official 9/11 story and to offer some hope.

St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church was the only non WTC building to be destroyed in the 9/11 attacks and sat almost 700 linear feet away from the north tower. This church served as a backdrop for photographs provided by the NYPD depicting an airplane wheel lodged in what we are told is an external wall panel knocked loose from the north tower. The problem with that tale is that this wall panel neither flew from the north tower, nor indeed was ever part of its construction therefore this photograph is evidence that on at least some level, and it appears to be a very high level, the NYPD is involved in 9/11.
The construction of the panel is one clue that it is a fake but the most obvious reason is that the spandrels are bent in the wrong direction.

The spandrels were the plates that tied the wall panels together, and their connections had at least 24 bolts, half of which needed to snap in order for the wall panel to be pushed out in its entirety, and that’s not even considering the 24 bolts connecting the top and bottom connections. The plane debris allegedly struck FROM THE INSIDE so hard that it snapped all the connections simultaneously and still contained enough energy to push this 6 ton wall panel almost 700 horizontal feet while falling 1000 vertical feet.

It then settled to the ground without shattering the concrete but they screwed up with the spandrels – they are bent exactly opposite from how they would have been bent had that panel actually been pushed from the inside. What we are looking at is a mockup of a WTC wall panel that was probably used as part of a target practice wall, and then trucked to the site, dropped onto the pavement and beat up with sledge hammers.

St. Nicholas Church provided a heart wrenching backdrop for these propaganda photos, also notable are the fire and the American flag. Conveniently for the perpetrators, the wall panel and the church were buried in the collapse, but these photographs expose the depth of the corruption that continues to support the 9/11 myth. For the NYPD to be right about that wall panel Flight 11 had to cut through a whole steel building and still have enough force to snap dozens of bolts and shoot 6 tons of steel 700 feet, a clear impossibility. At 9/11 Crash Test we have a small but dedicated group of people willing to put that claim to the test. We are seeking volunteers to help start a revolution of awareness that the level of corruption in world government has reached a critical mass all based on the lies of 9/11.

It has been 13 years since that day, isn’t it about time we started facing the truth?

The fastest way to end the wars is by exposing the lies that spawned them. Please join us at 9/11 Crash Test.org for a rocket-powered shortcut to reality.

Thank you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
weth
post Sep 12 2014, 08:44 AM
Post #2





Group: Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined: 12-February 10
Member No.: 4,916



QUOTE (yankee451 @ Sep 12 2014, 09:10 AM) *
New video - the NYPD are exposed (again) for being part and parcel to the 9/11 operation.

Video link:
http://youtu.be/vSi_9S-S6kI

This church served as a backdrop for photographs provided by the NYPD depicting an airplane wheel lodged in what we are told is an external wall panel knocked loose from the north tower. The problem with that tale is that this wall panel neither flew from the north tower, nor indeed was ever part of its construction therefore this photograph is evidence that on at least some level, and it appears to be a very high level, the NYPD is involved in 9/11.

Hi Steve De’ak, I think you are wrong with the idea, that this panel was staged. Good animation, but this panel really popped out ( together with the airplane wheel and other parts of the plane and the wall) of the south wall of the North Tower.

I will explain why: as you can see a l l the spandrels of this section/panel where caved out (seen from inside the tower) , because together with the plane impact, there was a huge deflagration of jet fuel which was spilled in, and the pressure of this deflagration bent the two ends of adjacent bolted spandrels outwards (and not inwards as you assume in the video) and not till then , caused together with the kinetic energy of the flying parts (there was also a fuselage piece flying through: http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm ) the connection bolts failed and the whole section flew off and came down !

See also the numerous other parts from the towers and the debris on the photographs on Church street. This could not be staged!

Remember: more than half of the jet fuel of AA 11 was spilled in the North Tower, the pressure of appr. 10 bar of the deflagration of this fuel , in all directions (!), not only caused the huge fireball visible outside, but also the spandrel bulges (remark: a l l the visible spandrels of the section are bulged!) together with the kinetic energy of flying material the section was blown out. By the way, appr.87-8 seconds later the (via two elevator shafts) also downwards pressured jet fuel caused the lobby and basement deflagrations ("explosions") which some people who do not properly reflect, see as basement bombs, ignited before the plane hit, which is not true.

As you, I am convinced that 9/11 was an inside job, the towers and WTC 7 were brought down bei controlled demolition, for sure no B.757 flew into the Pentagon, but this video and the idea that the wall section was staged, is easily debunkable and should be revised, as are the bombs in the basements , the concourse lobby (unfortunately shown in the new Hooper movie:Anatomy of a Great Deception) allegedly ignited, b e f o r e the plane hit the north tower. No such reports from the south tower, because of the asymmetric impact and tight elevator shafts. So please, leave easy debunkable suspicions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post Sep 12 2014, 10:43 AM
Post #3





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 476
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



I must take exception with your statement: "What we are looking at is a mockup of a WTC wall panel that was probably used as part of a target practice wall, and then trucked to the site, dropped onto the pavement and beat up with sledge hammers."

I agree that this is a very strange event. But to suggest that it was trucked there, dropped off (without a crane) and beat up with sledge hammers is going way too far.

Nobody reported a crew offloading a 6 ton panel and beating it up. This would take a lot of time. When would this take place?

If you look at the other photos in the series, you'll see that there was a piece of pipe (sprinkler?) that was attached to it which damaged the scaffolding on the building to the south and a pickup truck parked across the street.

If you study the connections, floor supports, etc, you may see that this panel is also reversed. I really appreciate your animation for telling the story, but can we be absolutely sure the panel flew out, as depicted? Isn't the panel end for end upon landing? I'm willing to revisit this with you and come to a firm conclusion.

I agree this is a very improbable event. First of all the glass would blow and relieve a lot of the surface pressure on the panel. The failure of all bolts is damn curious also. I counted over 100 bolts that would have to fail simultaneously. Then you have shear studs embedded in the edge of the floors to consider. And the truss connections.

I agree that no damage to the street and missing parked cars on a Tuesday workday is very curious indeed. That no pedestrians were injured is a miracle.

We need more information to determine what actually took place. Unfortunately I have no confidence that we will get more. Like so many other strange events on 9/11 we may have to leave this panel as one more unexplained mystery.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Shallel
post Sep 12 2014, 12:03 PM
Post #4





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 42
Joined: 13-November 07
Member No.: 2,476



Thank-you, Steve. You are absolutely right about this being a planted mockup of a WTC wall panel.
It does not match the configuration of a WTC wall section - The Gusset Plates, which were welded to
the floor trusses are not there. We see bolted pipes where they should have been.
There are other parts that are not present in the diagrams and construction pics of the WTC.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0yQP2nAiYw


It was an impossibility for this panel to be ejected in the manner described, and indeed the spandrels are bent
in the opposite direction that they would have been if the panel was ripped from it's bolts.

A deflagration of jet fuel could never bend this high grade steel - that is laughable.

This is PLANTED evidence! Why would they plant evidence? Because no Boeing 767 could attain said speeds
(as thoroughly proven by P4T), nor defy Newton's second law of motion.
This applies to both piloted or remotely guided planes of any type.

There were no plane impacts. Newton's second proves the videos are fake.
All you need to prove this is to take any video showing the alleged impact, and step through it frame by frame.
If you count the number of frames it takes for the plane to fly through it's own length in air, and count again the
number of frames it takes to "prenetrate" the tower. It is the same number of frames.
Therefore there is NO deceleration. F=ma=m(0)=0
There is no force to damage the building or the plane. Obviously this is not an event that can ever happen in the real world;
it can only happen on by a fake video effect.

No certified wreckage has ever been presented from the four jets allegedly involved in 9/11.
None of the videos allegedly showing the alleged 9/11 jets have been certified as authentic.

"As a senior air crash investigator for over twenty years. I have never heard of a land accident where investigators
failed to identify the aircraft. It would be impossible for a crash to destroy or obliterate all the aircrafts critical parts or
their unique serial numbers. 
I repeat, impossible." - Colonel George Nelson

www.sxolsout.org.uk/phone.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
weth
post Sep 12 2014, 07:16 PM
Post #5





Group: Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined: 12-February 10
Member No.: 4,916



QUOTE (Shallel @ Sep 12 2014, 06:03 PM) *
Thank-you, Steve. You are absolutely right about this being a planted mockup of a WTC wall panel.
It does not match the configuration of a WTC wall section - The Gusset Plates, which were welded to
the floor trusses are not there.

They are partly there, but damaged.

QUOTE (Shallel @ Sep 12 2014, 06:03 PM) *
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0yQP2nAiYw


It was an impossibility for this panel to be ejected in the manner described, and indeed the spandrels are bent
in the opposite direction that they would have been if the panel was ripped from it's bolts.


Look at your video, which against all knowledge and common sense is speaking from TV fakery, CNN 911 fakes etc.

First of all, the wall panel did not come the way down as Steve is thinking and his animation is showing.
Look closer.
The panel made a full turn and landed upside down (!) ( easily visible when regarding the truss seats and their directions) next to St.Nicholas . So from aside we see the panel inside on top, the top part of the
panel on the left (with the wheel which became stuck on top , and direct above-more left- the fair visible most upper spandrel part), we see the bottom part of the panel then on the right.

Obviously, when the wall section was blown out, the upper part (with the wheel) got a spin, turned outside and made a full turn later and the lower part bending in, the lower positioned and visible four outer spandrel plates, while we cannot evaluate the upper spandrel plates. They are not visible in the footage.


QUOTE (Shallel @ Sep 12 2014, 06:03 PM) *
A deflagration of jet fuel could never bend this high grade steel - that is laughable.

Laughable is the idea that all this what we see on photographs was staged! The damage of the pick-up staged? The damage of the red van behind staged?And later the red van was removed?
All debris and pieces (incl. fuselage piece) staged?

How can you explain the uniform concave surfaces (bulges) of all the spandrel plates? There must have been the two forces I described.

QUOTE (Shallel @ Sep 12 2014, 06:03 PM) *
This is PLANTED evidence! Why would they plant evidence?

Never ever!
QUOTE (Shallel @ Sep 12 2014, 06:03 PM) *
There were no plane impacts.
....
it can only happen on by a fake video effect.

No plane impacts? Absurd.
QUOTE (Shallel @ Sep 12 2014, 06:03 PM) *
No certified wreckage has ever been presented from the four jets allegedly involved in 9/11.

This is not true!
See e.g. http://killtown.911review.org/wtc-gallery.html , fuselage sections, landing gear, plane debris, see also fotos of airplane parts and content on the roof of Bankers Trust building, etc, etc.

This post has been edited by weth: Sep 12 2014, 07:20 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Sep 12 2014, 10:02 PM
Post #6





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



It is a pity that Steve has chosen to take this stance re: the wall panel on the street.

We are on the same team (truthers) but this is one of those situations where we won't be in agreement.

Steve, I have a strong suspicion that you were influenced in some way by the folks at Let's Roll wrt the wall panel. Is this the case here?
Was this all your own analysis or did you get the impetus from ideas floated at LRF?

I admire your strong conviction in the 9/11 work that you do.
You are spot on with the net results (U.S.'s carte blanche to attack any country it bloody feels like, in the name of 'terrorism' etc. etc.).

However I can not go with you with three of your pet projects/analyses:

1. Crash test
2. Missiles striking the WTC towers
3. Planted wall panel



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Sep 13 2014, 12:32 AM
Post #7





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 91
Joined: 22-June 13
Member No.: 7,427



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Sep 12 2014, 06:02 PM) *
It is a pity that Steve has chosen to take this stance re: the wall panel on the street.

We are on the same team (truthers) but this is one of those situations where we won't be in agreement.

Steve, I have a strong suspicion that you were influenced in some way by the folks at Let's Roll wrt the wall panel. Is this the case here?
Was this all your own analysis or did you get the impetus from ideas floated at LRF?

I admire your strong conviction in the 9/11 work that you do.
You are spot on with the net results (U.S.'s carte blanche to attack any country it bloody feels like, in the name of 'terrorism' etc. etc.).

However I can not go with you with three of your pet projects/analyses:

1. Crash test
2. Missiles striking the WTC towers
3. Planted wall panel


Hey Mike,

I don't work with Let's Roll, although many of them are friends of mine - but even if I did what does that have to do with the evidence I discuss in the video?

It's obvious to a barnyard animal that the evidence was planted. If you think it wasn't planted, then do explain how it flew 657 feet without shattering the sidewalk, but please spare us all the "I admire" tripe.

Sincerely,

Steve De'ak
Independent Researcher

This post has been edited by yankee451: Sep 13 2014, 12:37 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Sep 13 2014, 12:37 AM
Post #8





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 91
Joined: 22-June 13
Member No.: 7,427



QUOTE (Shallel @ Sep 12 2014, 08:03 AM) *
Thank-you, Steve. You are absolutely right about this being a planted mockup of a WTC wall panel.
It does not match the configuration of a WTC wall section - The Gusset Plates, which were welded to
the floor trusses are not there. We see bolted pipes where they should have been.
There are other parts that are not present in the diagrams and construction pics of the WTC.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0yQP2nAiYw


It was an impossibility for this panel to be ejected in the manner described, and indeed the spandrels are bent
in the opposite direction that they would have been if the panel was ripped from it's bolts.

A deflagration of jet fuel could never bend this high grade steel - that is laughable.

This is PLANTED evidence! Why would they plant evidence? Because no Boeing 767 could attain said speeds
(as thoroughly proven by P4T), nor defy Newton's second law of motion.
This applies to both piloted or remotely guided planes of any type.

There were no plane impacts. Newton's second proves the videos are fake.
All you need to prove this is to take any video showing the alleged impact, and step through it frame by frame.
If you count the number of frames it takes for the plane to fly through it's own length in air, and count again the
number of frames it takes to "prenetrate" the tower. It is the same number of frames.
Therefore there is NO deceleration. F=ma=m(0)=0
There is no force to damage the building or the plane. Obviously this is not an event that can ever happen in the real world;
it can only happen on by a fake video effect.

No certified wreckage has ever been presented from the four jets allegedly involved in 9/11.
None of the videos allegedly showing the alleged 9/11 jets have been certified as authentic.

"As a senior air crash investigator for over twenty years. I have never heard of a land accident where investigators
failed to identify the aircraft. It would be impossible for a crash to destroy or obliterate all the aircrafts critical parts or
their unique serial numbers. 
I repeat, impossible." - Colonel George Nelson

www.sxolsout.org.uk/phone.html


Thank you - its refreshing to have a bit of honesty!

Would you consider joining the 9/11 Crash Test project? We are gathering a diverse group and would be honored if you would join us.

Think about it -

Steve De'ak
sdeak0451@gmail.com
http://911crashtest.org
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Sep 13 2014, 04:02 PM
Post #9





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 91
Joined: 22-June 13
Member No.: 7,427



QUOTE (weth @ Sep 12 2014, 03:16 PM) *
The panel made a full turn and landed upside down (!)


Which would mean the spandrel would be upside down too (!).

I didn't want to even reply to this silly post but I figure someone somewhere would think the poster was correct (not).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post Sep 13 2014, 06:00 PM
Post #10





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 476
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



The panel is end for end. If you raised the panel vertically, the south end that is towards the street being raised, the end on the parking lot as the base, it would be upside down relative to the tower. This means it twisted 180 degrees in flight landing with the top towards the tower. The tire was embedded in the east window at the beginning and ended on the street towards the west.

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=E097D925456F1330%21224

The spandrel height is utilized mostly by the trusses, with shear studs for the slab towards the top. There is a smaller, clear portion above the slab that is used for under the window sill heating equipment.

Here is a good study of this issue:

http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Sep 13 2014, 06:48 PM
Post #11





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (yankee451 @ Sep 12 2014, 11:32 PM) *
Hey Mike,

I don't work with Let's Roll, although many of them are friends of mine - but even if I did what does that have to do with the evidence I discuss in the video?


I didn't say you worked with Let's Roll. I simply asked if you got your idea or parts of your idea from discussions on LRF, that's all. I'd still like to know.
There were many discussions there about the 'tyre' at the car park next to the St. Nicholas Church.


QUOTE
It's obvious to a barnyard animal that the evidence was planted. If you think it wasn't planted, then do explain how it flew 657 feet without shattering the sidewalk, but please spare us all the "I admire" tripe.


Steve, I don't think a barnyard animal would have the IQ to work this one out. smile.gif

There was planted evidence on 9/11 no doubt, but this isn't one of them.

First of all, the photos we have available don't show conclusively that there was or wasn't damage to the sidewalk.

Secondly, surely you must see the damage imparted to the truck's backside?
Don't you think this damage would have cushioned the blow of the facade when it hit the ground?

Do you think damage to the ground would have been different had the facade not hit the truck and hit the ground as if spearing it, rather than flat?

Let's leave all the above aside for a moment and simply try to look at the photo and reason.

That would be one heck of a scene to stage!
Can you see all of the debris in the street and parking lot? It doesn't look staged to me.
Can you imagine the equipment that would be needed to damage that truck's rear end like that?
As was mentioned, do you know how long it would take to stage something of this magnitude, so convincingly?
Surely more than one hour! But they didn't have that luxury.


And what would the purpose be for staging this?
It's not like hundreds of people would be passing by admiring the staged props.
The area was closed off to pedestrians soon after the plane strikes.
It was also buried in debris and dust after the towers fell.

So why would the police want to stage something like this?
We have videos of the planes striking the towers and countless witnesses to it.
We have an engine on Murray St. and various plane parts at other locations.

Why go to the bother of staging something that so few people would see?
Why would it be necessary?

This post has been edited by NP1Mike: Sep 13 2014, 06:56 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Sep 13 2014, 07:19 PM
Post #12





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (yankee451 @ Sep 12 2014, 11:37 PM) *
Thank you - its refreshing to have a bit of honesty!

Would you consider joining the 9/11 Crash Test project? We are gathering a diverse group and would be honored if you would join us.


Steve I think your project is commendable (I will spare you the admiration). smile.gif

However it is commendable for reasons different than what you may be thinking.

I believe that if your crash test came to fruition, it would show that the plane's wing could not cut through the steel beams.

But it would be a hollow victory (no pun intended).


I, nor any of the serious students of the plane crashes into the towers have claimed that the planes cut through the steel beams!!!
They obviously did not.

HOWEVER, the planes did break the bolts holding the beams together and push the beams into the tower (or simply pushed the beams if the bolts were removed in advance).

Any media that would potentially cover this test would point this out immediately.
And where would that land you? Tens of thousands of dollars later...

This is not to dissuade you in any way to go ahead with your test.
The publicity would be worthwhile, but it wouldn't help our cause ultimately.

If I were to conduct 9/11 'tests' I would build models to show how buildings would collapse naturally due to over-loaded weight or structural compromise.

I would build a model to show that planes don't disappear into thin air when they come into contact with another object (Pentagon/Shanksville).

I would build a model to show that a plane's wing striking a lamp post heading across a highway, will not cause that lamp post to instantly stop, change its traveling direction by 90 degrees and proceed to hit a car on the highway 100+ feet away, lengthwise.

There are many other tests I would build to further our cause, but the crash test you have planned would not be one of them.









Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
justaskin
post Sep 14 2014, 01:45 PM
Post #13





Group: Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: 28-August 12
Member No.: 6,979



QUOTE (Shallel @ Sep 12 2014, 10:03 AM) *
. . .
There were no plane impacts. Newton's second proves the videos are fake.
All you need to prove this is to take any video showing the alleged impact, and step through it frame by frame.
If you count the number of frames it takes for the plane to fly through it's own length in air, and count again the
number of frames it takes to "prenetrate" the tower. It is the same number of frames.
. . .

This is wrong. The force necessary to produce enough change in velocity to be detectable by the 'frame count' method is far, far in excess of what the aircraft structure can withstand. Frankly, the whole NYC/NPT thing is starting to piss me off. It is exactly the kind of easily debunked bogus argument that is cited to discredit 9/11 truth, and those who promote it are, at best, irresponsible.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Sep 14 2014, 06:27 PM
Post #14





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 91
Joined: 22-June 13
Member No.: 7,427



QUOTE (kawika @ Sep 13 2014, 02:00 PM) *
The panel is end for end. If you raised the panel vertically, the south end that is towards the street being raised, the end on the parking lot as the base, it would be upside down relative to the tower. This means it twisted 180 degrees in flight landing with the top towards the tower. The tire was embedded in the east window at the beginning and ended on the street towards the west.

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=E097D925456F1330%21224

The spandrel height is utilized mostly by the trusses, with shear studs for the slab towards the top. There is a smaller, clear portion above the slab that is used for under the window sill heating equipment.

Here is a good study of this issue:

http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm


Now you're just being ridiculous. Do you really need me to point out the multiple reasons that expose this wall panel as a mockup? Besides - what are you saying, that it really DID fly 657 feet to settle gently to the ground without shattering the sidewalk?

You can't have it both ways - no matter how badly you'd like to twist this explanation into a pretzel, either way you look at it the spandrels are bent backwards.

This is planted evidence.

This post has been edited by yankee451: Sep 14 2014, 06:28 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Shallel
post Sep 15 2014, 11:32 AM
Post #15





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 42
Joined: 13-November 07
Member No.: 2,476



QUOTE (justaskin @ Sep 12 2014, 03:45 PM) *
This is wrong. The force necessary to produce enough change in velocity to be detectable by the 'frame count' method is far, far in excess of what the aircraft structure can withstand. Frankly, the whole NYC/NPT thing is starting to piss me off. It is exactly the kind of easily debunked bogus argument that is cited to discredit 9/11 truth, and those who promote it are, at best, irresponsible.


There was no damage to the aircraft structure. In the real world there would have been crumpling of the airframe. Shredded 767 would have rained down on the South Side of the tower; maybe some parts would penetrate the building, but we see NO interaction between the plane and the building. The deceleration would not have been subtle.

When the B-25 hit the Empire State Building it decelerated to ZERO before the tail had even made it into the building.

So I guess it is the truth that is pissing you off.

Believe you me, I have no intention of discrediting 9/11 truth. I have the truth on my side here. If you want to know who discredits 9/11 truth, just look at 95% of the "9/11 Truth Movement" following controlled op leaders spouting talking points about the ridiculous and impossible thermite theory, and how it is forbidden by sites like 911blogger and A&E to even talk about the FACT that no plane hit the Pentagon.

Get a grip!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Shallel
post Sep 15 2014, 11:36 AM
Post #16





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 42
Joined: 13-November 07
Member No.: 2,476



QUOTE (yankee451 @ Sep 11 2014, 02:37 AM) *
Thank you - its refreshing to have a bit of honesty!

Would you consider joining the 9/11 Crash Test project? We are gathering a diverse group and would be honored if you would join us.

Think about it -

http://911crashtest.org


Thanks for your research, Steve. This looks like a very worthwhile project.

I would be happy to join and support your work any way I can.

Will be in touch. Keep up the good work!

Shallel
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Sep 15 2014, 09:28 PM
Post #17





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



I think it should be pointed out to all that Steve is a no-planer.

Once you commit to being a no planer you then have no choice but to argue that all of the plane debris discovered must be "planted" evidence.

There can be no exceptions.
It's all or none.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Sep 16 2014, 11:51 PM
Post #18





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 951
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Sep 14 2014, 12:28 AM) *
I think it should be pointed out to all that Steve is a no-planer.

Once you commit to being a no planer you then have no choice but to argue that all of the plane debris discovered must be "planted" evidence.

There can be no exceptions.
It's all or none.


I think it should be pointed out to all that Tamborine man also is, and remains (so far), a no-planer!

Hi NP1Mike,

it seems to me that you could be the right person to take up 'questionitall's' challenge made some years
back, regarding the fuselage pieces found on the roof at WTC5.
Hope you're game! Yes?

QUOTE
The truth is I’d love for someone to prove my overall UA175 “Conspiracy Theory” ridiculous and utterly wrong. .....
.....


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...0&start=100

The photos in question can be found in post #32, from 24.6.2011, in the above thread.

Cheers - and good luck!

This post has been edited by Tamborine man: Sep 16 2014, 11:57 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Sep 17 2014, 11:05 PM
Post #19





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Sep 16 2014, 10:51 PM) *
it seems to me that you could be the right person to take up 'questionitall's' challenge made some years
back, regarding the fuselage pieces found on the roof at WTC5.
Hope you're game! Yes?


Good to hear from you again TMan!
It's been a little while.

First I'd like to say that everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I respect no-planers' decision to go in that direction. Heck there was a brief period when I myself was a no-planer!
We're all in this together, that's the important part.

We all know the government's story is bogus and it was an inside job.
The specific details here and there don't really matter that much when you think about it.

As for planes/no planes, we do share some common ground.
We both believe that no planes went down at the Pentagon or Shanksville.

As far as 'questionitall's' challenge is concerned...
You're going to have to help me out a bit there.
I started to read one of his posts in the long thread you linked to and I must say it was sheer torture to do that.
His writing style is *extremely* convoluted.
I'm usually a patient man, but I must say I ran out of patience by the end of just one of his posts!
What exactly is his 'challenge'?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Sep 18 2014, 11:39 AM
Post #20





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 951
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Sep 17 2014, 03:05 PM) *
Good to hear from you again TMan!
It's been a little while.

I respect no-planers' decision to go in that direction. Heck there was a brief period when I myself was a no-planer!
We're all in this together, that's the important part.


Good to hear! thumbsup.gif

QUOTE
As far as 'questionitall's' challenge is concerned...
You're going to have to help me out a bit there.
I started to read one of his posts in the long thread you linked to and I must say it was sheer torture to do that.
His writing style is *extremely* convoluted.
I'm usually a patient man, but I must say I ran out of patience by the end of just one of his posts!
What exactly is his 'challenge'?


Well, you could have gone straight to post #32 as i referred to, and at least have taken a look at the
photos linked to therein! - that would have saved us both some precious time, wouldn't it??

So again, go to post #32 and study the photos named 'DSC00478', '12390', 'Copyofplanepartrf20-full'
and 'img-3191', to see if you can pick the rather obvious discrepancies shown there so 'graphically'!

Please let me know what you think -

Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 12th November 2019 - 07:13 PM