Pick any of the documentary DVDs that shows the video of the south wall of the south tower allegedly being hit by "FLT175" examine closely what is being sold to the public, note that in the official account the "aircraft" would have had to strike the wall in a manner that would have the port side wing strike the wall before the starboard side wing, causing huge unbalanced forces on the aircraft, and with all that is known about this alleged airliner crash, do you believe that its a real airliner striking that wall, or is is fake?
Real airliner. There was not time for the path of the craft to be altered by one wing striking before the other: the mass was in motion.
To rebut your claim that there was not time, note that there are high-speed movies of bullets even supersonic projectiles, striking targets and the projectiles deform in a very short span of time, forces act on materials and these materials bend, break very quickly under such forces. I again state that the fact of one wing striking the wall before the other is a significant factor in this crash and if it were a real crash of a real aircraft, WHY did the "aircraft" remain whole while penetrating the wall?
Clearly the indication is that the body of the aircraft should have suffered major structural failure while still outside of the tower. That event would have to include tons of aircraft bits not making it inside the hole, but bouncing off of the tower wall and falling to the street. Note that in the case of a race car crash, say the car looses a wheel, the wheel doesn't have the KE of the entire car, it only has its own KE that is a product of its mass & velocity. why should we expect broken off aircraft bits, to arbitrarily have sufficient KE to enter the building through the original entry hole made by the nose of the alleged aircraft?
I challenge you, find witnesses who would be willing to sign legal documents to attest to what they say they saw, and that these witnesses confirm the official story in describing events that absent explosives constitute violations of the laws of physics.
lol!!!! my Aunt saw the second plane hit from the corner of Grand and Clinton St. my family friends saw the 2nd plane hit on East Broadway and Clinton. I see no reason to not trust them. They have no agenda nor vested interest in lying.
Yep, for instance I was watching some talking head babbling on television when the second plane hit and all I saw was a second plane hitting. I think I would have noticed had anything else happened; well me and millions of other riveted viewers watching in real time. Whatever some of these conspiracy theorists have been smoking, they either need to seriously step down the dosage or radically increase it. Sheesh!
Clearly NOT... You also blithely ignore 2 tons of titanium and steel on each wing,along with the landing gear on the wings an in the nose....think they might have had enough KE?
is it guaranteed for certain that your aunt can visually identify an airliner as being different from a drone, missile, military aircraft, or? what?
Why do they have to sign 'legal documents'?...If they were part of the conspiracy and lying the documents would be pointless And NO laws of physics were broken on 9/11 - - - Updated - - - You think she couldn't? what's your proof of that?
I could say I know people that saw something other what was officially represented too. We really have no way of verifying that though, do we?
why would I lie about something as simple as this? what would I have to gain? my father and mother did not see the plane. none of my cousins saw it. I have no friends who saw it. but, my Aunt saw it at ground level and my family friend saw it on the 20th floor of his building.
That must have been a 'honest' mistake though, by the observer, right? Many are willing to excuse obvious inaccuracies and represent them as 'honest' mistakes while simultaneously accusing anybody that doesn't 'go along' with the official claims as liars, frauds (or some other nefarious characterization). Apply logic equally, and fairly should be all that is needed.
why aren't all the witnesses coming forward to tell their tale? dude, its 2014. Its been 13 years. We have moved on. We don't need to relive these memories, especially so that a bunch of anti-American Truthers can accuse us of being agents/shills/NWO spies.
Maybe they were simply 'mistaken'? (like the person that supposedly witnessed the first plane crashing into the building LIVE, as they claimed) People claim to bear 'witness' to what it is they THINK they saw, don't they? We hear that a lot from the 'pro government' story tellers when truthers can find witnesses that claim they saw something other than what is being presented. Can't we apply the very same standard to BOTH, or are there different standards (depending on the story they tell)? - - - Updated - - - There HAVE been those that have come forward (now and at the time). They're ridiculed though, or were ignored by the investigating bodies at the time. For instance, truthers want to protest the 9/11 memorial TODAY, (to continue to try and call attention to the obvious farce) and the 'mainstream news' purveyors are already starting their programmed attacks.
The word 'imagine' is YOUR word, not mine. I am simply throwing back the gauntlet to you (just as 'pro official' story tellers do with truthers), when they call out the other side's 'witnesses'.
Good stuff, I believe its a propaganda war all the way. and the dark side is in control of the major propaganda machine that is the mainstream media.
Tomahawk cruise missile is 18 feet in length. The 767 is at least 159 feet in length. The difference between a gnat and a bird.
