All over the internet and available upon request. Why haven't you asked for them? Do you need to be spoon fed?
Believe me, I have looked for documentary photos of 9/11 and there is an abundance of picture books on the market that are selling collections of pix without so much as captions to any given pix and so making the whole thing an exercise in futility. where are the real documentary pix?
if indeed pix are all over the internet, do YOU have any sort of link to INFORMATION? help me out here.... OK ?
Where does it state in any Document that testing for explosive or explosive residue was indeed carried out and what the result of these tests were?
You are making assumptions then about what is available over the internet, if you can not show a link to INFORMATION, then you don't have that link, therefore said INFORMATION may not exist at all, BTW: did you personally review the info at that "PENTTBOM" link I was given? does it contain an reference at all to explosives testing?
The link to PENTTBOM, showed me a document that doesn't mention explosives testing at all. go figure(?)
There are 70+ documents on this page: http://vault.fbi.gov/9-11 Commission Report I looked through all of the Penttbom related ones and didn't find anything related to explosives or bombs, even after using CTRL+F Which one is it in?
Where is the report that states what sort of testing was done on what bits and exactly what results were obtained?
Those steel reinforced concrete decks you refer to ARE the surface of the building. According to you the wings should have broke off before striking said steel reinforced concrete decks. The pix you ask me to look at is a pix of an .......... wait for it............. aircraft. So you wish to use an image of an aircraft striking the building as evidence that no aircraft struck the building....... It was not in a power dive or whatever both planes clearly flew in a straight and level manner into the building. Yes planes so it every day. Velocity does in fact change the entire outcome.
so a Boeing 757/767 type aircraft can fly level at near sea level at >500 mph and be controllable by a novice level pilot? also please do explain your statement about how the decks " ARE the surface of the building " The decks are perpendicular to the outer wall of the tower and therefore are NOT the surface at all. I use a picture of an aircraft in my illustration to point out how completely improbable the events are in the case of an airliner striking a wall. In the case of "FLT175" the aircraft was shown striking the building at an angle such that the port side wing would contact the wall before the starboard side wing, therefore the aircraft would have to have been subjected to huge stress and asymmetrical at that, one would have to expect the entire aircraft to consist of a solid block of titanium .... what? - - - Updated - - - See my reply to "soupnazi"
Near sea level is a very broad term in this case it was not at sea level but much higher and yes it can fly that fast in level flight by a novice pilot. They are the surface period the first thing one touches on anything is the surface you are trying to have it both ways. The picture proves it happened and does not demonstrate any probability at all in fact you have yhet to show any probability of anything apparently you do not grasp what probability means. It s irrelevant what angle it was at ne would not expect it to be made of anything except what it was made of. Traveling at the high speed it was moving at it was going to cause the damage it caused.
He was crashing the plane, not landing it. The hijackers had enough training and they were not concerned with landing or passenger complaints....they were crashing. And your point is moot as video, photos and eyewitnesses validate what happened. You're being obtuse. What was the time difference between the port side wing imapcting the tower from the starboard side wing impact the building and in context of the planes speed, do you really thing believe any small change to the plane would be captured on video? And why, the side of the building was absorbing the impact so, would that small difference be noticable?[/QUOTE]
The first thing that an airliner would have encountered upon striking the tower would be the outside aluminum trim, and then the steel box columns and then after having to deal with the aforementioned bits, only then would it come in contact with the deck. " irrelevant what angle it was " the alleged "FLT175" struck the tower at an angle such that the port side wing contacted the wall significantly before the starboard side wing. you may believe this is not relevant to the discussion, but that is simply your belief. also, the difference between flying at aprox 1000 ft as apposed to cruising at 30,000 ft is huge and it is as yet totally unproven that any aircraft designed to cruse at 500 mph @ 30,000 ft can operate at that speed as low as 1000 ft. If you have PROOF that an airliner can operate that close to sea level and at >500 mph, please present it.
To address this bit, is it documented anyplace that it is known to be possible to attain level flight using a Boeing 757/767 type airliner flying at 1000 ft and traveling at >500 MPH? any aviation experts care to comment?
No it is not proven that an aircraft designed to fly cruise at 30,000 feet will not operate at 1000 feet they do it every day if you look at aircraft flying THAT IS YOUR PROOF. You are now backpedaling and changing the bar to alter what you call the surface of the building. The wings would not snap off before striking the surface of the building beause nothing would make them snap off yet that is your entire delusion. It is irrelevant what angle the plane struck at and it is not alleged it is absolute proven fact that FLT175 STRUCK. Debris indentified and proven to be from no other air craft. Not to mention passenger effects from NO OTHER air craft. And of course communications with passengers up until the end. Everything you say is scientifically proven false and invalid. The links to the evidence is all over these threads and you never bothered to read them. Everytime they are posted you ignore them and go back into your circular argument
Where is it DOCUMENTED that an airliner has ever been operated at >500 MPH and 1000 FT or less? You say they do it every day, do you have anything to substantiate that claim? how is that documented? and again as for the alleged personal items, luggage, (etc... ) how is it documented that any identifiable bits where actually found at ground zero? are you absolutely certain about that?
