No-planers: I challenge you to explain how all the videos and photos....

Please define what the "jet into the cement" is?

 

I'm guessing it's the comparative video you've been discussing.

You are keeping up, aren't you?
or?

 

RE: accordion aircraft, you first brought up how crush-able the aluminum aircraft was and how the crushing should act as a shock absorber just like the crumple zones in cars, but then when I ask for elaboration, the topic shifts to some sort of secret code "jet into the cement" whatever that means and when I ask, all I get in answer is a ""
whats up with that?

 

Not if you guyz are going to create tangents
written in secret code ...... what is up with the
"jet into the cement" ?

what is going on around here?

 

Can you support that with hard data as to how
radio controlled detonators work?

Also note my post #215 in this thread,
it appears that by default, there are some individuals
here who can not answer a simple question and by
that make the statement that it was incorrect to have
attempted to apply labels to one of my previous posts.

 

There are generally agreed upon standards for everything
ever hear of "Food Defect Action Level"? things like rat droppings
in commercially prepared foods, can be measured and known to
be at some PPM level and as long as its below a specified level,
the food can be legally sold.

In the case of controlled demolitions, there are agreed upon
standards such that if a demolition job is done and leaves
a few % of the building standing, its considered a successful
demolition ( that is with agreement of the customer ..... )
and that is the way these sorts of thing must by the very nature
of physical systems work.

 

Yup that's their evidence they know what happened. To funny a troll just made that same remark to me when I made the comment about the FBI having no evidence that Bin Laden was involved in the 911 attacks. Oh we know it was Al Qaeda we just had a hard time proving it but we know. This is good stuff. Proof is pretty important when our sons and daughters are the ones being sent in harm's way, for me any way. Call me Johnny Cochrane, "if the gloves don't fit then you must acquit"

 

Well put. When you actually look at 911 truth you can come to no other conclusion than the official lie is way out in left field.
In the spirit of this thread. I was watching live on TV that morning. I was pretty sure I saw a plane hit the building, but I didn't see an impact video until years later. This is all news to me. So I can't say for sure but didn't David Copperfield make a building disappear with mirrors or some thing. I know the elite use magicians tricks to get people to agree with them, and in sense brainwash them with suggestive thinking. Watch the hands and the three wish's e.g.. everyone deserves heath care! We are going to create more jobs! We need tax cuts!
By this time we are all nodding our heads yes. Then they motion with the left hand or both hands and say vote for me.

 

I was going to quote him Johnny! With one word "Troll"

 

By raising the left hand it causes your right side of the brain to be activated. This was tested and proven on scanners. You start to day dream of those three wishes, and you believe that by voting for them you will get those 3 things we all want. Commercial's don't need hands they use images to activate the right side, most use the three wishes, e.g. you will get that girl! More power! Better mpg! Meanwhile feeding you images of sexy women and tires squealing and every one is impressed with the car.

Once you know the techniques it is easy to see.

 

Mirrors and magic. The apparent truther's area of expertise.

 

Scepticism an apparent brainwashed response. No worries Hoosier ignorance is bliss

 

You would know.

 

I'm rubber and you're glue

 

Amazing how truthers can just ignore the eye witnesses and come up with conspiracy theories.

 

What is amazing, is the plane at the Pentagon. That is amazing.

 

Yeah, the experts are the ones that weren't there and the one's that were there are just part of the conspiracy. Only the looney truthers could come up with that.

 

You are the air traffic control guy. Hoosier you weren't there dude. You know what you have been told. You haven't shown me any proof of your claims.

When you use the word Looney you are expressing a brainwashed response. I won't spend much time on the hopelessly brainwashed slaves

 

"You weren't there dude", how prophetic. Yet you claim to be aware of more knowledge of those that were.

 

I'm more aware then you. I never said I knew more than those that were so why are you barking at me? I know why... that question is for you to figure out.

 

Sure you are, and yes, your statement pretty much insure you think you know more than those that were there.

 

So indirectly you are saying you were there? BS you told me a week or two ago, your coworker was there, and they told you. That is why you are dancing around the question.

- - - Updated - - -

And that will end my wasted time

 

TOTALLY means TOTALLY in or out of demolitions.

Your standards are not their standards and you are not using THEIR standards

 

Note that the NIST used the term "total collapse"
and if then in this context what could "TOTAL" possibly mean?
you are picking a nit. If I were to say " for all practical purposes the building was demolished " would that make any difference?
the fact is that in order to achieve even 90% destruction of a building
its a damn good trick and is difficult enough to achieve even when people are trying to get that result, however in the case of chaotic damage & fire achieving the result, and 3X on the same day, and you would rather chalk it up to "incredulity" rather than actually consider the evidence.

or?