Look, I think you're wasting time here. If I post up anything in the nature of proof, it is likely you will disagree with it and demand more proof. That is a tiresome, boring and all too predictable game.
Psssst. You do that too. I've seen you poo poo some pretty compelling evidence that is contrary to your position. You're projecting big time.
I will here only engage with you if you assume an affirmative stance and post up what YOU think SHOULD have happened. If you support the claim that the shadow thingy image I HAVE ALREADY posted is an accurate representation of what should happen, then kindly affirm your reasons.
Dude. What you have posted is EXACTLY what I would expect because I know that a plane hit the building. The evidence for it is incontrovertible. So, the images of what happened when it did is what would actually happen when a plane at that mass and that speed strikes a building constructed like the WTC. This is YOUR claim. YOU need to show how it would really look if I were wrong.
I'd suggest you don't 'engage' me if you have a problem with that too, because I think anybody who thinks that there were no planes on 911 is insane.
Instead of posting videos and word salads that you think refute what happened on 911 how about posting videos and evidence that show what you think happened on 911. No planes, DEW, remote controlled aircraft, missiles etc - whaterver you have, just post it. In the meantime stop pissing about on a forum where only a dozen people respond to you. Take your evidence and vast knowledge on 911 to those who can do something about it.
Did you contact those numbers you where given weeks ago?
Did you contact the FBI?
Did you contact the coroner?
What have you done in the last 12 mnonths other than piss about on here?
Posters, beachnut thinks I am delusional. OK, beachnut, I get that. You think I am delusional. If you were to ask me "what part of beachnut thinks jammonius is delusional don't you grasp" I would reply as follows:
beachnut thinks jammonius is delusional is absolutely 100% clear because beachnut says so in just about every post that he makes that is in reply to a post I make. So I think not only I, but all 200 +/- of us who might review this thread at some point or another also get that beachnut firmly believes, asserts, and frequently re-states that jammonius is delusional.
Now it's your turn, beachnut, do you get it yet?
The 66,000 pounds of jet fuel have the heat energy of 315 tons of TNT. Beats in energy the feeble Kamikaze with a small bomb. FACT is the impact alone of Flight 175 at 590 mph was equal in kinetic energy to 2093 pounds of TNT.
And, what part of that energy and that fuel was expended in the explosions seen in this photo, occurring >1 second or so after the impact of the shadow thingy and largely on the opposite side of where the impact of the shadow thingy was seen to have occurred?
Since the permimeter steel columns could not do anything at all to either slow or cause any degrading of the shadow thingy, kindly explain what part of the cubicle dividers, computer monitors, desks and chairs caused the shadow thingy to completely come unglued and explode once it got inside and started making contact with all of the said objects of office furnishing?
Your lack of knowledge is producing mind numbing nonsense so stupid it hurts to read. I can't imagine how hard it is to try to make up your failed ideas. Each time I think you have hit the bottom in the pit of ignorance on 911 issues you continue to find new depths of stupid based on new depths of ignorance.
Physics is only a class away for most, for you it is behind an impenetrable shield of moronic stupidity.
Posters, beachnut thinks I am delusional. OK, beachnut, I get that. You think I am delusional. If you were to ask me "what part of beachnut thinks jammonius is delusional don't you grasp" I would reply as follows:
beachnut thinks jammonius is delusional is absolutely 100% clear because beachnut says so in just about every post that he makes that is in reply to a post I make. So I think not only I, but all 200 +/- of us who might review this thread at some point or another also get that beachnut firmly believes, asserts, and frequently re-states that jammonius is delusional.
Now it's your turn, beachnut, do you get it yet?
And, what part of that energy and that fuel was expended in the explosions seen in this photo, occurring >1 second or so after the impact of the shadow thingy and largely on the opposite side of where the impact of the shadow thingy was seen to have occurred?
Since the permimeter steel columns could not do anything at all to either slow or cause any degrading of the shadow thingy, kindly explain what part of the cubicle dividers, computer monitors, desks and chairs caused the shadow thingy to completely come unglued and explode once it got inside and starting making contact with all of the said objects of office furnishing?
How many times are you going to use the words "moronic stupidity" before you realize they reveal information about you and you alone, pray tell?[/QUOTE]
Bolded mine and is passed back you.
Your post is self debunking yet you just dont see it.
May i suggest taking a few classes in the following -
Not just your ordinary shadow. A top secret military grade shadow with the strength of a commercial aircraft. Probably piloted by those shady umbrella ninja type guys from the Shadow Control section of area 51. Dont you read.
Thank you for your post and for posting up that interesting 1:07 youtube video. I think the video adds to the information base in this thread.
If you would like, I think we could enter into dialogue as to what the video shows. Here, for instance, are a few comments I should like to make about it and a suggestion for step-by-step viewing of the video.
Advance from 0:00 to 0:24 and press pause at the 24" mark.
There you will likely see that the shadow thingy that had appeared and had looked for all the world like, well, a shadow thingy, has penetrated in one fell swoop the south face of Tower 2 without slowing, degrading or exploding. The 24" mark shows barely a puff of light gray smoke and virtually no discernable debris.
Before proceeding further. Let me stop at this point and ask if you agree the above is a fair statement of what the video reveals at the 24" mark?
Permit me also to inquire as to whether from 0:00 up to 0:24 you think the video contains an accurate and satisfactory sound track?
You acknowledge that sirens are clearly heard starting at 0:00 and continuing without pause up to 0:24?
Do you think you hear sounds consistent with jet engines at what has to be considered full throttle because of the speed attributed to shadow thingy at any time in the video from 0:00 to 0:24; and, if so, kindly state the time interval where you assert the sound of full throttle jet engines can be heard?
Do you think you hear sounds consistent with a full throttle jetliner crashing into a minimum 1/4" steel beam and concrete structure at any point up to the 24" mark; and, if so, kindly state the time interval where such is to be heard?
When and if we complete dialogue on this portion we can advance the discussion to the next time segment. I here invite you to determine what the next signficant time segment should be. Or, if you like, you can go back to any point prior to the 24" interval to highlight matters that you think are worthy of dialogue.
How many times are you going to use the words "shadowy thingy"? Are you claiming that it is not a plane? Is it a computer animation? Is someone just gesticulating magicly and clouding our minds?
Normally, jetliners that are hollow and made of aluminum break up upon impact with objects that are harder and heavier than they are. For instance, in most, if not almost all, plane wreckage photos that one can find, tail section remnants generally survive either intact or in identifiable portions. Yet, in the 9/11 world of exception, no tail section of any jetliner survived anywhere.
Thank you for your post and for posting up that interesting 1:07 youtube video. I think the video adds to the information base in this thread.
If you would like, I think we could enter into dialogue as to what the video shows. Here, for instance, are a few comments I should like to make about it and a suggestion for step-by-step viewing of the video.
Advance from 0:00 to 0:24 and press pause at the 24" mark.
There you will likely see that the shadow thingy that had appeared and had looked for all the world like, well, a shadow thingy, has penetrated in one fell swoop the south face of Tower 2 without slowing, degrading or exploding. The 24" mark shows barely a puff of light gray smoke and virtually no discernable debris.
Before proceeding further. Let me stop at this point and ask if you agree the above is a fair statement of what the video reveals at the 24" mark?
Permit me also to inquire as to whether from 0:00 up to 0:24 you think the video contains an accurate and satisfactory sound track?
You acknowledge that sirens are clearly heard starting at 0:00 and continuing without pause up to 0:24?
Do you think you hear sounds consistent with jet engines at what has to be considered full throttle because of the speed attributed to shadow thingy at any time in the video from 0:00 to 0:24; and, if so, kindly state the time interval where you assert the sound of full throttle jet engines can be heard?
Do you think you hear sounds consistent with a full throttle jetliner crashing into a minimum 1/4" steel beam and concrete structure at any point up to the 24" mark; and, if so, kindly state the time interval where such is to be heard?
When and if we complete dialogue on this portion we can advance the discussion to the next time segment. I here invite you to determine what the next signficant time segment should be. Or, if you like, you can go back to any point prior to the 24" interval to highlight matters that you think are worthy of dialogue.
Being oblivious to reality is something we have failed to help you with. It is time for you to seek medical help or to get another hobby.
How unprofessional of those deceiving videographers to leave the movie based sound out and forget to put a larger SFX movie entry sparkly flash in. Damn.
This is very strange. There seems to be some concern here with being referred to as a "stupid moron" or something like that. But this can hardly be a surprising label when so-called evidence inevitably falls back on grainy videos that have been handled elsewhere by professional video experts. It's almost like talking with Scientologists whose arguments inevitably fall back on the amazing technology of the E-meter. Wow...there's a video...and it's posted on Youtube. That proves everything. Or is the argument really that No Planer J is the real hero of reality, bravest of brave willing to pull away the veil of the Matrix?
Get a grip. Go back to the video games and realize you're what the nerds always dreaded growing up into - an unemployed narcisist with no girlfriend.
Thank you for your post and for posting up that interesting 1:07 youtube video. I think the video adds to the information base in this thread.
If you would like, I think we could enter into dialogue as to what the video shows. Here, for instance, are a few comments I should like to make about it and a suggestion for step-by-step viewing of the video.
Advance from 0:00 to 0:24 and press pause at the 24" mark.
There you will likely see that the shadow thingy that had appeared and had looked for all the world like, well, a shadow thingy, has penetrated in one fell swoop the south face of Tower 2 without slowing, degrading or exploding. The 24" mark shows barely a puff of light gray smoke and virtually no discernable debris.
Before proceeding further. Let me stop at this point and ask if you agree the above is a fair statement of what the video reveals at the 24" mark?
Permit me also to inquire as to whether from 0:00 up to 0:24 you think the video contains an accurate and satisfactory sound track?
You acknowledge that sirens are clearly heard starting at 0:00 and continuing without pause up to 0:24?
Do you think you hear sounds consistent with jet engines at what has to be considered full throttle because of the speed attributed to shadow thingy at any time in the video from 0:00 to 0:24; and, if so, kindly state the time interval where you assert the sound of full throttle jet engines can be heard?
Do you think you hear sounds consistent with a full throttle jetliner crashing into a minimum 1/4" steel beam and concrete structure at any point up to the 24" mark; and, if so, kindly state the time interval where such is to be heard?
When and if we complete dialogue on this portion we can advance the discussion to the next time segment. I here invite you to determine what the next signficant time segment should be. Or, if you like, you can go back to any point prior to the 24" interval to highlight matters that you think are worthy of dialogue.
You didn't answer my question. It's a simple question. If it wasn't a plane, then what was it?
The plane was traveling at almost 600mph. That's the same speed a .45 caliber bullet leaves the barrel of a pistol. As for the sounds on the video...everything sounds about right to me. I've never heard a plane hit a building before, but that sounds about right.
You keep saying the plane didn't explode...funny..i see a giant fireball in the video. Please clarify what you mean.
You didn't answer my question. It's a simple question. If it wasn't a plane, then what was it?
The plane was traveling at almost 600mph. That's the same speed a .45 caliber bullet leaves the barrel of a pistol. As for the sounds on the video...everything sounds about right to me. I've never heard a plane hit a building before, but that sounds about right.
You keep saying the plane didn't explode...funny..i see a giant fireball in the video. Please clarify what you mean.
Remember. We're dealing with an irrational person here. Evidence and truth mean nothing to him. He call what 100% of all rational people that are able to verbally express what they see as an airplane a "shadow thingy." There is not one eyewitness that saw the airliner hit the tower state that it wasn't an airplane. He thinks that the fuel should have exploded the second the nose hit the building. He doesn't understand what it takes to ignite jet fuel. The Purdue animation is probably the closest we'll come to seeing what happened.
Oh for goodness sake! macgyver, I appear never yet to have answered a question of yours satisfactorily; and, I don't ever expect I will!!
That said, would you now do me a favor and skip the "you didn't answer my question" routine if at all possible.
I thought I was clear in calling it "a shadow thingy"? Do you not understand that I am calling it a shadowy thingy and can we let it go at that?
For your information, I do not have the serial number of the shadow thingy. However, if past is prologue, the lack of serial numbers is not considered by you to be an impediment. If it looks like a shadow thingy on video, why shouldn't that be an adequate descriptor? I here assert that it is.
The plane was traveling at almost 600mph. That's the same speed a .45 caliber bullet leaves the barrel of a pistol. As for the sounds on the video...everything sounds about right to me. I've never heard a plane hit a building before, but that sounds about right.
Wow, macgyver, that is about as maximally elastic, imprecise, approximate and non-investigative as one could possibly be. But, ok, I get it. You have looked, you have listened and you have given your reply. Thanks.
You keep saying the plane didn't explode...funny..i see a giant fireball in the video. Please clarify what you mean.
Whoa...I just asked a simple question. You call it a shadow thingy...everyone else calls it a plane. It implies you believe it was something else. I just asked what that was.
For your information, I do not have the serial number of the shadow thingy. However, if past is prologue, the lack of serial numbers is not considered by you to be an impediment. If it looks like a shadow thingy on video, why shouldn't that be an adequate descriptor? I here assert that it is.
Call it what you want. LashL showed you what your assertions are worth.
Wow, macgyver, that is about as maximally elastic, imprecise, approximate and non-investigative as one could possibly be. But, ok, I get it. You have looked, you have listened and you have given your reply. Thanks.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
