Greetings scott,
Well, goodness knows you should expand on some observsations you think are relevant, without, at the same time, having a very clear indication of what your expanded observations apply to. This is, after all, just a message board.
Take a look at this illustration and see if, by chance, it helps you:
The contentions that are made about the video of the shadow thingy hitting WTC2 include, but aren't necessarily limited to, the following:
1--The shadow thingy hits WTC2 without exploding.
2--The shadow thingy hits without disentegrating.
3--The shadow thingy hits without slowing, and continues into WTC2 without so much as a wing clipping off, from nose to midsection from midsection past the wings on through and including the tail without any apparent change in speed, direction or any other indicator that what is seen is real.
4--Finally, though not shown in the above, to the extent an explosion did occur, it occurred in the wrong place, namely on the east side of the building, after the shadow thingy had completely penetrated the WTC as if it were a hot knife instead of a hollow aluminum tube and as is the WTC was butter instead of a solidly constructed skyscraper that was the tallest building in the world when built and built accordingly.
Speaking of having "patience to wade through all ... the... crap to find out the exact nature of YOUR claims" I understand there have been several that simply do not attribute the normal attributes to either aluminum or to structural steel; and, instead, obfuscate those attributes away. One other thing that is also expendible by your side is common sense. However, let me quickly add I do not mean that in a disparaging way.
Dispensation with common sense is what the 9/11 psyop was intended to do. It was staged and rolled out so as to prevent questioning as doing so goes against an overarching appearance of authority, clothed in patriotism and in xenophobia. The public had no chance to put its thinking cap on straight in the face of the "shock and awe" tactic that was used against us.
Your reaction is understandable. I get that. It is necessary for most people to either accept the common myth or to keep quiet about their reservations for fear of being ostracized.
The Kamikaze planes were loaded with explosives, not mere aviation fuel. And, as to such fuel, aviation fuel used in piston engines was gasoline. Jet fuel isn't even that; rather, it is only kerosene and does not burn anywhere near hot enough to do a damn thing to steel. Furthermore, the amount of kerosene attributable to the shadow thingy was about enough to fill an average size backyard swimming pool and thus was nowhere near sufficient in volume to do much damage to the WTC. Indeed, it didn't do any damage to it as it was entering the building, from nose to tail, wing tip to wing tip. It didn't even explode.
You do see and acknowledge that, don't you? Or does your level of denial extend to imagining an interior explosion that Stanley Pramnath miraculously survived, followed by some kind of "physics" that explains why the main explosion, burning up most of the fuel, was in the wrong place, outside the otherside of the building. And, that, nonetheless, there was still enough inside to melt away steel beams and core columns?
If you try, you might be able at this juncture to rid yourself of the "shock and awe' effect and regain your senses. Try it.
What, exactly, is your claim?
Well, goodness knows you should expand on some observsations you think are relevant, without, at the same time, having a very clear indication of what your expanded observations apply to. This is, after all, just a message board.
Take a look at this illustration and see if, by chance, it helps you:
The contentions that are made about the video of the shadow thingy hitting WTC2 include, but aren't necessarily limited to, the following:
1--The shadow thingy hits WTC2 without exploding.
2--The shadow thingy hits without disentegrating.
3--The shadow thingy hits without slowing, and continues into WTC2 without so much as a wing clipping off, from nose to midsection from midsection past the wings on through and including the tail without any apparent change in speed, direction or any other indicator that what is seen is real.
4--Finally, though not shown in the above, to the extent an explosion did occur, it occurred in the wrong place, namely on the east side of the building, after the shadow thingy had completely penetrated the WTC as if it were a hot knife instead of a hollow aluminum tube and as is the WTC was butter instead of a solidly constructed skyscraper that was the tallest building in the world when built and built accordingly.
Speaking of having "patience to wade through all ... the... crap to find out the exact nature of YOUR claims" I understand there have been several that simply do not attribute the normal attributes to either aluminum or to structural steel; and, instead, obfuscate those attributes away. One other thing that is also expendible by your side is common sense. However, let me quickly add I do not mean that in a disparaging way.
Dispensation with common sense is what the 9/11 psyop was intended to do. It was staged and rolled out so as to prevent questioning as doing so goes against an overarching appearance of authority, clothed in patriotism and in xenophobia. The public had no chance to put its thinking cap on straight in the face of the "shock and awe" tactic that was used against us.
Your reaction is understandable. I get that. It is necessary for most people to either accept the common myth or to keep quiet about their reservations for fear of being ostracized.
The Kamikaze planes were loaded with explosives, not mere aviation fuel. And, as to such fuel, aviation fuel used in piston engines was gasoline. Jet fuel isn't even that; rather, it is only kerosene and does not burn anywhere near hot enough to do a damn thing to steel. Furthermore, the amount of kerosene attributable to the shadow thingy was about enough to fill an average size backyard swimming pool and thus was nowhere near sufficient in volume to do much damage to the WTC. Indeed, it didn't do any damage to it as it was entering the building, from nose to tail, wing tip to wing tip. It didn't even explode.
You do see and acknowledge that, don't you? Or does your level of denial extend to imagining an interior explosion that Stanley Pramnath miraculously survived, followed by some kind of "physics" that explains why the main explosion, burning up most of the fuel, was in the wrong place, outside the otherside of the building. And, that, nonetheless, there was still enough inside to melt away steel beams and core columns?
If you try, you might be able at this juncture to rid yourself of the "shock and awe' effect and regain your senses. Try it.
What, exactly, is your claim?
