• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Reasonable doubt...All truthers(and whoever esle) please read

waypastvne said:
Take a close look at the ground.

[qimg]http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/af74/waypastvne/Roll_3_29_edit_small.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Interesting photo...can't quite make out what it is. but I'll assume it's a body part. But we're talking about bone fragments less then 1/16th an itch found 400 feet away. More then 300 of them were found. Doesn't seem like a plane crash would do that.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
tmd2_1 said:
Not so...this may seem trivial, but it really isn't. Look at this article, it says body parts were foundQUOTE]
You're not getting it; high speed crashes involve far greater energy and trauma than slower velocity crashes.
Click to expand...

No you just told me the crash in Iran is an example similar to what could have happened in New York. I showed body parts were still found.
Click to expand...
 
tmd2_1 said:
. Doesn't seem like a plane crash would do that.
Click to expand...
What should one expect in a high velocity crash involving a large vehicle?
What should one expect when a person is subjected to a 500,000 tons of grinding force?
 
tmd2_1 said:
No you just told me the crash in Iran is an example similar to what could have happened in New York. I showed body parts were still found.
Click to expand...

Good, now tell us why the results of the Iranian crash were somewhat different than PSA 1771 and 592. This is something you should have figured out by now.

HINT:
tmd, I understand the differences very well. The point you should have gotten is that not all crashes leave significant parts. Slower velocities will have less kinetic energy and the trauma will from a relative standpoint be less. Then you have examples like 592 and 1771 which were steep angled, extremely high velocity crashes that involved exponentially higher kinetic energy than the Iranian crash, and fragments no larger than a human ear were found.

The crashes into the WTC were 450-500 mph crashes. Then they were subjected to 500,000+ tons of force when the buildings collapsed. I'm not surprised by this; why are you?
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
You guys love to put words in people's mouths. I said it was possible remote controlled 767's were used. Modified tankers. Showed evidence of how it could be done, showed Boeing's weird statement on the matter (not implicating them) Now that turns into I've implicated everyone?
Click to expand...

You mean the 767 tanker variant that first flew in 2005?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-767
 
oh my god, I never post but that first youtube video with the truther interviewing the cab driver is one of the funniest things I've ever seen.
 
tmd2_1 said:
Check this out for more info...some as far as 400 feet away?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/bodies.html
Click to expand...
You lack of knowledge of physics, and your gullibility are you why you have doubts. You don't know much about physics. From the aircraft hitting the WTC at high speed things could be ejected very far. I have investigated accidents where the aircraft stalled in from 1,000 feet, and parts were ejected hundreds of feet. You lack experience.

Have you retracted the LIE about some terrorists being alive? Or will you remain gullible your entire life like me?
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
Good, now tell us why the results of the Iranian crash were somewhat different than PSA 1771 and 592. This is something you should have figured out by now.

HINT:
tmd, I understand the differences very well. The point you should have gotten is that not all crashes leave significant parts. Slower velocities will have less kinetic energy and the trauma will from a relative standpoint be less. Then you have examples like 592 and 1771 which were steep angled, extremely high velocity crashes that involved exponentially higher kinetic energy than the Iranian crash, and fragments no larger than a human ear were found.

The crashes into the WTC were 450-500 mph crashes. Then they were subjected to 500,000+ tons of force when the buildings collapsed. I'm not surprised by this; why are you?
Click to expand...


They were bigger then an ear. See below. Big difference between that and bone fragment less then 1/16th of an inch.
We don't even know where these people came from they may not have even been on the planes.

Why would the collapse force people out? No reason for it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1771

http://www.cnn.com/US/valujet.592/timeline.html
 
tmd2_1 said:
They were bigger then an ear. See below. Big difference between that and bone fragment less then 1/16th of an inch.
We don't even know where these people came from they may not have even been on the planes.

Why would the collapse force people out? No reason for it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1771

http://www.cnn.com/US/valujet.592/timeline.html
Click to expand...

You site two aircraft crashes, one on purpose, that spread debris for hundreds of feet.

The collapse of the WTC towers had the energy released just due to gravity (mass and height) equal in energy to 130 tons of TNT. This why stuff was all over the place, messing up 19 acres with debris from two towers who only were on 2 acre sites. We have 110 acres of debris in each tower in a chaotic collapse with the energy of collapse alone equal to 130 2,000 pound bombs. Why would you not expect stuff to be ejected for hundreds of feet?


easyreader said:
oh my god, I never post but that first youtube video with the truther interviewing the cab driver is one of the funniest things I've ever seen.
Click to expand...
Secret Agent, 00911, the super cab driver, the NWO chief spy and he can't keep a secret.
 
easyreader said:
oh my god, I never post but that first youtube video with the truther interviewing the cab driver is one of the funniest things I've ever seen.
Click to expand...
j5ifle.jpg
 
triforcharity said:
This looks orange to you?

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/111asilverusedtoorangepiecedroppingWTC.jpg

**** man, I am color blind (Red-Green defencieny {SP?}) and I can see that is NOT orange. It actually seems to match the exterior cladding of the WTC Tower.
Click to expand...

The color was 175 blue and green and 161 red. He might have a color blindness issue that is new, a constant orange bias, filtering his vision.

Instead of seeing dead people, this sixth sense is, "I see orange, I see ...
 
WildCat said:
Do you know how tall the WTC was?????
Click to expand...

If I need them to be tall then they're tall if I need them to be small then they're small anyway it just doesn't look right to me./twoofer off
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
Interesting photo...can't quite make out what it is. but I'll assume it's a body part. But we're talking about bone fragments less then 1/16th an itch found 400 feet away. More then 300 of them were found. Doesn't seem like a plane crash would do that.
Click to expand...

Why not?
 
tmd2_1 said:
You may be right...but how would they go out? Especially that far out? Doesn't seem like it should, it's not columns where a spring type of affect could take place. To me it just doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

You subjective analysis of the situation lacks rigor. Perhaps you need to reevaluate any theory that relies on the word "seem."
 
ApolloGnomon said:
You may be right. Some of us may have overestimated it.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking he's at least beyond toilet training although he still seems to be admiring his product and smearing it all over the walls.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom