Who is claiming the column 'went through' anything? Looks (to me) like part of the exterior facade. Why did you ignore the second part of my question?
Just the last part about the "conversation in the ballpark". :smile. The rest was not directed at you because from what I have read of your posts both here and at Let's Roll, you don't believe the video fakery angle. It is too far fetched for you to defend. I mean this sincerely when I say you are too smart to swallow most of the crazy theories. Thanks for the link. That's not the nosecone coming out the other side.
I don't buy into it, that's why. I generally believe what I see. Though, I've grown up in the age where things are faker than hell now in the movies and on TV. Green screen. But, two planes hit the WTC. Period. However, it does appear that the media did do some form of manipulation, using a certain backdrop as a template several times. But the larger conspiracy of, "Everything we saw is fake!" Yeah, that's completely bogus. You're welcome. Then what is it? It is definitely something. And it resembles the nosecone/front of the plane. Can you see the similarity? Like in shape and size?
I'm impulsive, and, both links worked for me when I tried them. Which one is giving you trouble? EDIT: I don't recall where I know that weight from. I could be wrong, but I just remember it weighing six tons.
NIST NCSTAR 1-5A - Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster Visual Evidence, Damage Estimates, and Timeline Analysis That's what it should link to.
Sorry for the delay. Actually, it is password protected, so I cannot copy or save pictures. And the picture is the same above anyway, by the same photographer, though clearer in quality. The other picture on the page is of the corner.
Well, I'm glad we agree on that. What form of manipulation would that be and why do you think that. Don't know. The resolution is to poor to tell what it is. But since the plane hit the building at 500+ mph, you can (*)(*)(*)(*) well be sure it is not the nosecone exiting the other side. I think leftysergeant has as good an explanation as anyone. I can see the similarity in shape and size. Can you see the similarity of the buildings in that video to buildings that have no windows? I'm sure you can but surely you don't believe that the WTC had no windows. But that's what it "looks" like in the video. That's my issue with these amateur video and photo analysis stuff. Truthers take grainy video and photos, enlarge them until they become so pixelated you can't tell what ANYTHING is and then make all kinds of crazy claims. Like nozzles on smoke machines for instance. It's pretty clear that what Jayhan is looking at is smoke discoloration on the facade, yet he invents this ridiculous "smoke machine" BS and his forum members eat it up.
Likewise. Like I said, "using a certain backdrop as a template several times" and I think that because of footage I've seen. That's obviously what I thought to begin with. Then I saw all of the footage showing what appears to be exactly that. Am I supposed to not believe what my eyes are seeing? I am indeed referring to the nose out shot. I can see the shape and similarity of the nosecone of a plane in that unburned jet fuel then. Some coincidence. And it's not too coincidental for you Dave? To see its characteristics... It's a hollow building, I don't know what you're talking about... I haven't done that...YET~! I don't understand what he's trying to accomplish. I don't know if he even believes the things he says. I'd hate to imagine if he really does.
Your problem is you make a bunch of assumptions that are incorrect and then like to pretend they are anomalies. The first picture was taken quite a few minutes before the second picture. The second picture was taken from a distance just before the collapse. The further you are from an object, the more it looks like you are "at a level height", especially when cropped in like in the picture. You can still tell the picture was taken below the height of the crash. Again, you make false assumptions. How do you know it was the nosecone? Did anyone FIND the nosecone? If the nosecone had indeed come through intact, someone would have found it like the did the engine and the landing gear. Instead what you claim is the nosecode could very well be the debris from the WTC pushed out in front of the plane including the windows.
What certain backdrop? The New York city skyline??? Did you see any footage that wasn't pixelated all too hell where you could actually make out any details? Lots of things are long and cylindrical. The fact that it instantly burst into flames seems to lend credence to the jet fuel theory. An airplane hit the building so some may assume it's a nosecone. I don't know why that's such a strange coincidence. A large phallic symbol would have the same shape. Maybe it was a huge remote controlled dildo. At that resolution one can't really determine what it is. The nosecone wasn't found was it? That would suggest that what you saw wasn't the nosecone. Other parts that penetrated the building WERE found. So why fixate on the fact that you think it was the nosecone. You don't dispute the fact that a plane hit the building. So if it was or wasn't the nosecone, how would that strengthen your case that the government was behind it? LOL, except for the shuttering and blind system and of course the smoke machines. You know, I think he actually does. Considering the way he jumped all over you right before he banned you, I think he thinks he's this real serious "researcher" and his "analysis" has solved the mystery. That sounds a bit like Jayhan. "We have proven that controlled demolition brought down the towers now we will theorize how they were able to prep it. The towers are hollow!!" Jayhan didn't come anywhere CLOSE to proving that controlled demolition brought down the towers yet he acted like it was a forgone conclusion and built the rest of his bull(*)(*)(*)(*) story on top of that. You can see something that you think is the nosecone coming through the towers but it is by no means proven or a foregone conclusion that it was the nosecone.
You should have said: "We can see something that we think is the nosecone coming through the towers but it is by no means proven or a foregone conclusion that it was the nosecone," considering the similarities you noted. I certainly understand where you are heading with this, and I can see why you're heading that way. All I want you to note is that this will be chalked up as just another 9/11 coincidence then. Because that's what you're implying. That it is just a coincidence. And the fact of something not being recovered...I've asked at Let's Roll, so I should ask here too: is there an official list of items found at the WTC clean-up site?
I don't think it is the nosecone. You think it is the nosecone. The plane hit the building at 500+ miles per hour. We agree on that. So I don't see any way possible that the nosecone is going to make it through the building in a shape that in any way resembles the nosecone. We both see something. You think it is a nosecone. I don't think that at all because physics pretty much dictates that it CAN'T be the nosecone. Well, unless of course the towers really ARE hollow. The only coincidence I see here is that "truthers" (not you particulary) have invented yet another coincidence to try and hang their hat on. What is coincidental about someone thinking they see a nosecone in a grainy video? I don't know if there is an official list of items. Have you heard of Google? It's a great research tool. Just kidding. I don't know that there is an official list. I'm sure there is somewhere but I haven't had much luck finding it. For general info, you might try here or here.
You might not think that it is the nosecone, but as you said, you can see the similarities. We can quote-unquote clearly see something in the video footage. And I was asking you for a recovery list because I've never been able to find one. I asked Jayhan for one, and he said there wasn't one. I searched again and again, no dice. Another 9/11 dead end.
"Clearly" is not a word that fits in this case. The footage is grainy and pixelated. It's more than not just thinking it's the nosecone: it's logically doubtful, given the physical properties at play. I found many sites that list things that were found, but not one all-encompassing list. Perhaps you could do the research and compile one for future students.
If it was the nosecone, why don't we see it after the explosion? What you claim is the nosecone would be very visible as it came down, but we don't see it. That is why over a decade later you are pretty much the only one claiming it was a nosecone. [video=youtube;FyXinllv2R4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyXinllv2R4[/video] Here is a good video. See anything that looks like a nosecone? I see what could be the engine and landing gear. I see lots of other debris. Nothing that could possibly be confused with a nosecone. That is the problem with looking at still pictures and not video and then pretending you know what it is.
Do you really think it is the nosecone? I can see the similarity in shape to a lot of things, most of which I know aren't what is coming through the building. You can't clearly see much of anything in that footage. Do you really believe Jayhan when he says something? Perhaps you should try a FOIA request.
