Hi Jammonius. I'm one of those Lurkers you keep trying in vain to appeal to, but I suspect I'm not the kind of Lurker you were hoping for.
As I have said, many times, the video of the second explosion shows the shadow thingy penetrating a steel beam structure, complete with concrete and rebar floors, from nose to mid section, through the wings and so on, without exploding, degrading, slowing or creating any debris at all.
That "shadow thingy" also displays highlights and in some videos some discernible surface detail. Why do you persist in using that breathtakingly idiotic term of yours? You'll notice that the buildings, too have areas that are in shadow, with a fairly low level of detail. Are the buildings in these videos holograms, too? Or is it that all of the videos are computer generated?
The image confirms a jetliner has glided almost all the way through a steel, concrete and rebar structure without degrading, without bending, without exploding and without shearing off any debris in any realistic quantity. in fact, let's be a little more exacting here. The wings that we must necessarily infer have passed through the exterior wall have done so, according to the still excerpt from Femr2's gif, without leaving any sign of doing so. Look at it posters and lurers. It's right there in front of you.
So you find it suspicious that the hole the aircraft created does not appear to be sufficiently "aircraft shaped" and that is evidence of an inside job. Got it. Moving on...
In fact, what is seen in Femr2's gif is the exact functional equivalent of a Roadrunner cartoon:
[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album2/road_runner2.jpg?t=1278157297[/qimg]
The Roadrunner and the Shadow thingy are two examples of the same thing:
So you find it suspicious that the hole the aircraft created appears to be exactly in the shape of an aircraft (cartoonishly so, in fact), and
that is evidence of an inside job. Well that seems perfectly reasona- wait,
WHAT?
There might be one other possibility Jam. What if the building itself had been tampered with, say weakened somehow in the area of impact.
After all it's undeniable that there is a flash from inside the building a split second before impact. It can be clearly seen even in Femr2's gif. This flash would indicate that the plane was hitting the building with pinpoint precision at a predetermined location. The same was true of flight 11 where there was also a flash before impact.
I had such high hopes that you had had some sort of epiphany a couple of months back and that you had spent the ensuing time rethinking your views. I see those hopes were in vain. You may be taking a different road than Jammonious is taking, but you are both heading for the same erroneous destination. It's sad because aside from having views that are dumber than a bag of hammers you seem like a decent, nice enough person. I and several others here were genuinely worried about you when you suddenly dropped off the map.
Hey bardamu, still others believe that the flashes were 'matches' to ensure that a satisfactory and telegenic fireball would ensue . All part of the 'shock and awe' of the viewers. Imagine if the jet fuel had failed to catch and make the giant fireball with all those cameras hanging in the sky ? Such a 'damp squib' would have been a true disaster for the perps.
It is your honest belief that the perpetrators decided to risk exposing their plot by weakening the supports of the towers and wiring it with explosives because they were worried that if the jets flew into the towers and
didn't explode(?), it wouldn't be sufficiently shocking and awe inspiring? Is that your contention???
Your queries are rhetorical and are not questions at all. Rather, they are assertions or claims, about which you very likely have very definite opinions about, or claims that you would like to make. It is not incumbent upon another to answer the rhetoric posed by someone else.
Let me add my voice to the chorus here and agree that you don't know what "rhetorical" means. Whenever someone asks you a question you don't like or can't answer, you claim it is "rhetorical", or part of a game of "20 questions" or a "Gotcha" game. I don't know what your deal is, whether you are mentally ill or a Troll (though one could argue that a sufficiently dedicated Troll might very well suffer from some sort of personality disorder), but get this through your head; YOU are the one coming here to a skeptics forum and making the extraordinary claim. OF COURSE people are going to ask you questions. What did you expect? You come here posting a bunch of videos and saying "don't they look weird?" and expecting everyone to fall in line and abandon all the hard evidence that supports the so-called "official story"?
The silent army of lurkers you seem to believe supports you out there in cyberspace either doesn't exist, doesn't actually agree with you or at best they are so lazy, so ineffectual, so unsupportive of their fellow Truthers that they can't even be bothered to post a few words of agreement or support. Any of those possibilities should give you pause...but I am absolutely certain that they won't.
Remind me to never ask either of you to help me move. Your analysis and problem solving skills are atrocious.
Me: OK, how are we going to get this couch down that flight of stairs?
Bill Smith: Maybe we could prewire it with explosives?
Me: (sigh) Any other views?
Jammonius: Um....holograms?
Me: What?
Jammonius: Shadow...couch-y?
Me: Come again?
Jammonius: Stop playing 20 questions and gotcha games!
Me: Riiiiight. Look. I think that if we turn it 90 degrees clockwise and angle it upwards, it should fit through the door and...
Jammonius: Lurkers, help me out here. He's the crazy one, right? Not me!
Me: Who are you talking to?
Jammonius: Again with your 20 questions! Look at these 43 heavily compressed, lo res videos of other attempts to move a couch out a narrow doorway...
Me: You know what? Never mind. I decided not to move. Who wants a beer?
Jammonius: Was that a rhetorical question?
