Flight 175 Turning And Burning, ...i`ve never seen this before! Options

[CocaineImportAge...]

south tower impact

...anybody!?!

[rob balsamo]

Well said amazed! Couldnt have said it better myself... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)


Has any NPTer tried to take their theories to ae911truth and ask the sheer/tensile strengths used in the outer perimeter? It appears to be rather thin steel, boxed.

(IMG:http://images.quickblogcast.com/81199-71081/fig_B_1.jpg)

I personally know how hard and durable a leading edge of an aircraft is just by feeling it with my own hand... and bumping my own head into it more times than i wish to admit..

Consider that same "arc" (wing) is filled with a fluid (read: uncompressable), and combined with the fact that there are so many witnesses which most NPTers fail to address and/or interview (read: Seeking Witnesses by posting on a forum instead of making calls and walking the NYC streets), the leap of logic from VF to NPT which most NPTers use to 'prove' their theory, is weak and short.

[Omega892R09]

I personally know how hard and durable a leading edge of an aircraft is just by feeling it with my own hand... and bumping my own head into it more times than i wish to admit..

As am I, after all I had to work with the blighters on a dark flight deck often in a howling gale and horizontal driven rain, sleet or snow.

Worse than wing leading edges were the various aerials sticking out below especially those very nasty Sparrow missile aerials, long and thin and projecting at about 30 degrees down and aft'. Walk into one of those, and it was at just the right height as one ducked down and walked, and it would go straight through an eye socket and out of the skull at the back.

We didn't have hard hats to wear in my day.

Consider that same "arc" (wing) is filled with a fluid (read: uncompressable),...

I am not familiar with that abreviation 'arc', but be that as it may the structure behind that filled section would not be indestructable - aircraft have to get off the ground and carry a payload, unlike WTC 1 and WTC 2.

Now don't get me for a no planer. My pitch is that the video clip concerned does not show an aircraft entering the tower, as I said there are no visible pieces falling to the ground as there would be if it were a real aircraft being filmed entering.

The official line is that a plane hit the Pentagon and you have demonstrated the fallacy of that. Why should WTC be any less of a smoke and mirror show?

There may have been some planes but I doubt that they were as alleged by the OCT, why could there not have been fly-bys just as at the Pentagon with something else going on in and internally placed explosives enlarging the hole.

BTW that image, is that from inside a tower before collapse or at GZ afterwards?