"Running away" is the term the pro 9/11 commission's version supporters use against truthers when they do likewise, isn't it?
Did I specify a "tomahawk"? There are all sorts of military options possible. Do you personally know of ALL of the weapons that the military has? I stick to what I said previously and that is the behavior of "FLT175" indicates clearly that whatever it was, it was NOT a big Boeing.
I have been debating with Truthers since 2006. I watched them rise in 2007, and then watched them pathetically fall to where they are today. They yelled and screamed than a new investigation was just around the corner, that the people were rising up, that the perps would soon be in jail, that Truthers would be sent to FEMA camps. its all one big joke. a big sad joke. that's why I no longer give Truthers much attention, as their movement is a dismal failure. I come by, once a year or so, just for (*)(*)(*)(*)s and giggles. adios kids. see you in a year.
What evidence, that fraudulent video of the alleged "FLT175" striking the south wall of the south tower?
Unless you can tell us exactly what it was,it will remain a Boeing 767-222,as the parts found indicate - - - Updated - - - Where's your evidence it was 'fraudulent'?..oh right,you have none.
Where is the documented inventory of aircraft bits that proves "FLT175" was real? also on the subject of fraudulent, the video doesn't show a real airliner striking the wall, could not possibly be a real airliner, the mechanics of the crash are completely wrong. Note that at the time it happened, the a photographer and the talking heads on TV commented on the fact that "FLT175" as much as melted into the side of the tower, VERY UNNATURAL ( wow, 9/11/2001 = an unnatural act! )
No,it didn't.....A 767 hit the tower,and why do you NEED an 'inventory' on scrap metal? I'm sure there were part numbers still readable on the parts...
so YOU are willing to accept the mainstream media's word on the subject that the alleged "FLT175" was a real aircraft that struck the south tower and that is that, you have all the data you need to form an opinion, and you need nothing else? Fact is, all other airline disasters have had an inventory of aircraft parts to analyze the failure modes of various parts so that the aircraft industry could learn from the disaster, in the case of 9/11/2001 the aircraft bits were as much as simply swept up and disposed of as so much scrap metal? WHAT?
So why no reconstruction in a hanger? You do not see that it was ever so convenient for the real perpetrators that 4 alleged airliners crashed in such a manner as to completely destroy the aircraft ( or alleged aircraft ) and therefore render it a moot point, any attempt to actually identify the airliner that was said to have crashed at that location. We have alleged Flight Recorder data, but the "FLT77" flight recorder data is either bogus, or its at the very least subject to interpretation several different ways, how scientific is that? & where are the flight recorders for the "FLT11" & "FLT175" what happened to them? pulverized along with tons of other materials in the towers? Something very much stinks about this whole bit, note that there was an episode of Top Gear where they placed a pick-up truck on top of a building to be demolished and the truck survived in a recognizable form as a truck and was even able to be driven off the scene. Contrast this with the WTC rubble, there was a restaurant at the top of the north tower, and as a restaurant, it would have had lots of rather substantial kitchen gear, stoves, iron cookware, ( etc.... ) and in the rubble NOTHING distinguishable as being from the restaurant, WHY?
Do you realize your last paragraph in theory disproves that which you want to be true? That's a shame.
Exactly WHY is it that you say the last paragraph "in theory" disproves .... what do you mean? Please elaborate.
I What was left to reconstruct? And you have to ask that,given the forces in play on 9/11? dropping a thousand feet in a grindind,twisting mass....I'll bet your guys at top gear didn't set a truck on top of a 110 story skyscraper
In a controlled demolition the truck rode down to the bottom unscathed. In the towers nothing from the top of the building rode down unscathed. Therefor by your own theory the towers were not a controlled demolition. You guys are fun.
Right, and now explain please how the forces, lacking explosives to expedite the destruction, pulverized EVERYTHING, not only the tower but all the contents of the tower?
and you are absolutely certain of that? right? Focus makes all the difference and this fact points to Malicious Human Intervention.
Focus Pinky..... FOCUS! There may ( or may not ) have been sufficient energy available from the potential energy of the mass in each tower, however if the energy wasn't focused, there is no telling how much destruction may or may not happen. its a crap shoot with the odds heavily weighted toward incomplete destruction.
Pinky says it was focused almost straight down. Now if you would like to believe explosives were required to pulverize those buildings I offer you to calculate how much explosive material would be needed? If you believe the concrete panels are capable of surviving that fall intact then obviously under that theory almost every square yard of concrete in that building would have to be charged and wired with explosives. Is that really what you believe?
