I have read the links you provided, they contain no proof. Maybe your standards are low enough to accept what is there, but my standards require real documentation of claims like "we tested for explosives"
The real documentation is available via FOIA from the original source. You have the link for that, too.
Z0, I submit a request, and how many weeks should I wait until I have to come to the conclusion that they are stonewalling? My point is that if the FBI had anything at all, and given the activity at street-level here, it would be expedient to simply publish the data and therefore debunk all of this "truther" crap that has been going around. We have had more than a decade for somebody to write a book and lay it all out very neat and clean, but instead we get the likes of the POPULAR MECHANICS fiasco ..... really people? I wonder how many subscribers they lost when they published that fraud?
"activity at street-level here..." mmmmmmm...you know that NO ONE outside of a handful of nuts, questions what happened that day? Don't assume there is a huge ground swell of truthers out there...just nothing more than a very vocal, ignorant minority.
Have you seen "PATRIOTS QUESTION 9/11" ? There are people who have earned advanced degrees people who have earned significant military rank, people who are published authors in various disciplines and you say "ignorant minority" ...... Minority, probably but a rather educated and in all other respects well achieved lot, who have earned their place in their chosen field(s) The trouble here also ( about that minority claim ) is that its very difficult to get a handle on how many people understand the nature of the fraud perpetrated on the world. You see if the pollster reproaches the random citizen and asks if they believe 9/11 was an inside job, the individual in question may say "absolutely not" but deep inside they KNOW that there is something very wrong here, however they do not want to be labeled a nut case, and therefore people will tend to go with the status quo .... lets all be NORMAL, not good to question the norm. its a bad thing for humanity in general that is what is happening right now.
evidence like the fact that the videos that alleged to show "FLT175" striking the south wall of the south tower are all obvious fakes and you refuse to open your eyes and actually look at the facts. have a nice day : )
in all the videos, the aircraft as much as melts into the side of the skyscraper. The aircraft is not seen slowing down in the video, in reality, the aircraft would have broken up before entering the building and there would be mass quantity of aircraft bits in the street below. Max speed difference possible to happen and not show up on 30 fps video is 125 mph reduction in speed, at that reduction, if one figures 150 ft long aircraft & a speed reduction of 125 mph, the deceleration forces = 28 g ..... no airliner is going to stay together under those conditions. See, I gave you some math and it proves my point. however, I really don't like to have to resort to throwing numbers, because this is NOT rocket science!
so your claim about this one is that the part of the aircraft outside the building, waited until it disappeared inside the building before it broke up? is that it? Airliners are a monocoque construction that is the whole thing is the structure, by the time that the airliner had progressed into the building far enough to make the wing(s) contact the wall the aircraft in total was severely compromised structurally. + the fact that the aircraft would be subject to forces such as the 28 g deceleration & the collision with the various structural members of the WTC tower. The idea that the aircraft outside the point of contact with the wall kept its shape, and only disintegrated inside the building is completely mad. Not to mention the fact that in the case of "FLT175" the alleged aircraft had the port side wing contact the wall before the starboard side wing and with that, people still hold on to the idea that the airliner would keep its shape outside the building, this is not the subject of a huge mathematical proof this is a matter of common sense.
Since the plane struck the target all the truther/troll claims about aircraft capabilities are meaningless. The plane struck the target.
you have an image of what is being sold as an airliner, on video, and that allegedly proves it was possible to fly an airliner at >100mph over VNE? what?
Since air resistance goes up by the cube of the velocity, the fact is that at so near sea-level and at 590 mph, the actuators that move the control surfaces would have to be expected to work 8 times harder than a "normally" operating airline at low altitude, could the machinery do it? most mechanical bits are to some extent over-designed to allow for a safety margin, however, 8 times over? it at the very least makes it highly improbable.
Bob, I think it must work something like this: If you can't define time and space (in full complete academic standard) and you breathe then, you have no idea about anything and you must be discounted entirely. (pretty sure that's how it's supposed to work).
Apparently, even the most basic instruments of common sense are something that we all lack. I can't you the molecular breakdown super duper nanothermite either but hey, if my criminally elected officials say (and in this case, VERY highly smelling criminal types) says it and I'm supposed to believe that feces is always green, and never brown, then it just must always be brown huh?
It's not the elected officials examining the evidence, Boss. It's experts worldwide. By an overwhelming majority they concur on what the evidence states. - - - Updated - - - It's not the elected officials examining the evidence, Boss. It's experts worldwide. By an overwhelming majority they concur on what the evidence states.
