• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

Matt Nelson: 9/11 Debris - An Investigation of Ground Zero

questionitall said:
And not surprisingly three weeks later he's failed to deliver on his dare by proving that was the case.
Click to expand...
Three weeks? The condition was "if you come back". You did so three days ago. waypastvne is not a regular poster, so you need to be patient. I am.
 
questionitall said:
Okay Mr. Knowitall, let's see what you've got.
Click to expand...

Part of a plane on a rooftop, from a plane take by a set of 19 idiots for UBL which they crashed into the WTC to kill for UBL.

The plot was a simple fake hijacking. 9/11 truth liars can't figure out 9/11 given the answers (aka massive evidence).

Parts from aircraft in crashes can end up all over the place, and in places you don't expect. An instrument from the cockpit of one aircraft crash I investigated was ejected during the crash 300 feet away in perfect condition.
 
Last edited:
Oh really beechnut,
An instrument from the cockpit of one aircraft crash you investigated was ejected during the crash 300 feet away in perfect condition, you say. Did that aircraft slam into a building at an impossible rate of speed as well?

While we're waiting on Mr. Nelson, please, do share the file number and link to that incident report, because you forgot to mention the circumstances under which that aircraft crashed and I don't take anything you say here seriously.

As for your statement "If you don't think the planes are the planes the FAA knows were used, then you don't trust the FAA, better stop flying" I'm a Transport Canada Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer with 30 plus years experience working on commercial/passenger jet airliners. And I know full well from personal dealings with the NTSB that when it comes to publically reporting all the facts given to them by a whistleblower their accountability and transparency are sorely lacking!

So NO, I don't trust the NTSB or the FAA at all!!!
 
questionitall said:
Oh really beechnut,
An instrument from the cockpit of one aircraft crash you investigated was ejected during the crash 300 feet away in perfect condition, you say. Did that aircraft slam into a building at an impossible rate of speed as well?

While we're waiting on Mr. Nelson, please, do share the file number and link to that incident report, because you forgot to mention the circumstances under which that aircraft crashed and I don't take anything you say here seriously.

As for your statement "If you don't think the planes are the planes the FAA knows were used, then you don't trust the FAA, better stop flying" I'm a Transport Canada Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer with 30 plus years experience working on commercial/passenger jet airliners. And I know full well from personal dealings with the NTSB that when it comes to publically reporting all the facts given to them by a whistleblower their accountability and transparency are sorely lacking!

So NO, I don't trust the NTSB or the FAA at all!!!
Click to expand...

I have investigated aircraft accidents for the USAF, and trained in aircraft investigation. Aircraft hitting the ground faster than the aircraft on 9/11 have things that remain in good condition. You should study things before falling for the lies of 9/11 truth, and learn 9/11 truth is nonsense based on massive ignorance of those who believe 9/11 truth claims.

There is no doubt which planes were used on 9/11. Radar proves it was 11, 77, 175, and 93 - it takes great ignorance to deny this fact. DNA proves where each plane left evidence of passengers on each plane. Only four planes are missing/destroyed on 9/11.

What planes were used in your version of 9/11?

Based on actually aircraft accidents, stuff can survive. In this case the ripped up section of aircraft left over during the high speed impact to a tower, is not exactly in good condition, it was ripped apart in a Kinetic energy impact equal in energy to over 1,000 pounds of TNT - 1600 to 2093 pounds of TNT at impact for 11 and 175. Physics.

The accident where the cockpit instrument was ejected from a U-2 which hit straight down into the ground - the cockpit was smashed beyond recognition. The class room history of crashes with small items remaining were up to MACH 1 at steep angles into the ground. The USAF in the past did not have black boxes in many of the older aircraft. Thus we had to sift through the wreckage to find clues to causes.

The FAA and NTSB people I worked with on aircraft accidents/incidents were professional - it appears you might be projecting.

The fact is, finding debris from the planes on 9/11 does not make the findings fodder for wild fantasy.
 
beachnut said:
I have investigated aircraft accidents for the USAF, and trained in aircraft investigation. Aircraft hitting the ground faster than the aircraft on 9/11 have things that remain in good condition. You should study things before falling for the lies of 9/11 truth, and learn 9/11 truth is nonsense based on massive ignorance of those who believe 9/11 truth claims.

There is no doubt which planes were used on 9/11. Radar proves it was 11, 77, 175, and 93 - it takes great ignorance to deny this fact. DNA proves where each plane left evidence of passengers on each plane. Only four planes are missing/destroyed on 9/11.

What planes were used in your version of 9/11?

Based on actually aircraft accidents, stuff can survive. In this case the ripped up section of aircraft left over during the high speed impact to a tower, is not exactly in good condition, it was ripped apart in a Kinetic energy impact equal in energy to over 1,000 pounds of TNT - 1600 to 2093 pounds of TNT at impact for 11 and 175. Physics.

The accident where the cockpit instrument was ejected from a U-2 which hit straight down into the ground - the cockpit was smashed beyond recognition. The class room history of crashes with small items remaining were up to MACH 1 at steep angles into the ground. The USAF in the past did not have black boxes in many of the older aircraft. Thus we had to sift through the wreckage to find clues to causes.

The FAA and NTSB people I worked with on aircraft accidents/incidents were professional - it appears you might be projecting.

The fact is, finding debris from the planes on 9/11 does not make the findings fodder for wild fantasy.
Click to expand...
It is an oddity of impacts that random items will survive unscathed. I can easily see how anyone would have the "that's impossible" reaction, but the simple fact is that is can and does happen. It is an inevitable consequence of the chaotic nature of a crash.

ETA: Actually, I can give a real world example of my own. About 30+ years ago there was a fatal car wreck near my home. Apparently, 5 idiots resurrected a car from a scrapyard, went joyriding, lost control, clipped a truck and totaled the car. 4 died at the scene. The fifth gave it legs and sprinted off into the night. Cops traced him and were at a loss to explain why idiot #5 had suffered not a single scratch.
 
Last edited:
waypastvne said:
It flew dead straight for about 500' then started dropping. It made it about 700' north just over the road between the Post Office and WTC7 then drifted with the wind back to WTC5. If you come back I'll explain HOW to you.


Do you want to play or not.


[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/rrzZ9hR.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

FYI, Dan (questionitall), your Pilots for 9/11 Truth post 4 days ago needs a correction. I found it when searching the web today for any new links to my book.

And yet Mr. Nelson has since counterclaimed that Corley's chunk of fuselage wreckage "flew dead straight for about 500' then started dropping. It made it about 700' north just over the road between the Post Office and WTC7 then drifted with the wind back to WTC5."
Click to expand...
- http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22939

As you can see, waypastvne made the statement. You even said yourself a few posts down:

waypastvne has claimed that it flew dead straight for about 500' then started dropping. It made it about 700' north just over the road between the Post Office and WTC7 then drifted with the wind back to WTC5. And by that I presume he was referring to Corley's "chunk of fuselage which clearly had windows in it"?
So too, waypastvne wrote in post #193 that if I come back he'd explain HOW to me.
Click to expand...

BTW, your link to this thread in the Pilots post doesn't work... as if anyone else will click it. "[2] Matt Nelson: 9/11 Debris - An Investigation of Ground Zero http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forum...ad.php?t=284475"

Dan, what is your opinion on the obvious United fuselage seen hanging from the burning tower in CNN's Brian Kiederling footage? I'm betting you don't respond to this question. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vftFo14mi_U

Dan, why is your 911RedPill video "Conspiracy Exposed Flight 175 Paint Problem" still up, after being proven wrong about the UAL175 fuselage -- since it undoubtedly came from beside the cargo door? Why did you delete my comment and not the video? (Since then, somebody else has left the same comment linking to the same photo. Why not delete that, too?) Why haven't you fixed your blog post about it, either? http://911truthout.blogspot.com/2018/10/matt-nelson-airplane-debris-wtc-9-11.html

FYI, everybody, I address Dan directly with this issue in the updated version of my "Airplane Debris, 9/11 WTC" PDF (pp. 81-82). If he doesn't admit he's wrong here, it's curtains for anything he says going forward.
 
MattNelson said:
FYI, Dan (questionitall), your Pilots for 9/11 Truth post 4 days ago needs a correction. I found it when searching the web today for any new links to my book.


- http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22939

As you can see, waypastvne made the statement. You even said yourself a few posts down:



BTW, your link to this thread in the Pilots post doesn't work... as if anyone else will click it. "[2] Matt Nelson: 9/11 Debris - An Investigation of Ground Zero http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forum...ad.php?t=284475"

Dan, what is your opinion on the obvious United fuselage seen hanging from the burning tower in CNN's Brian Kiederling footage? I'm betting you don't respond to this question. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vftFo14mi_U

Dan, why is your 911RedPill video "Conspiracy Exposed Flight 175 Paint Problem" still up, after being proven wrong about the UAL175 fuselage -- since it undoubtedly came from beside the cargo door? Why did you delete my comment and not the video? (Since then, somebody else has left the same comment linking to the same photo. Why not delete that, too?) Why haven't you fixed your blog post about it, either? http://911truthout.blogspot.com/2018/10/matt-nelson-airplane-debris-wtc-9-11.html

FYI, everybody, I address Dan directly with this issue in the updated version of my "Airplane Debris, 9/11 WTC" PDF (pp. 81-82). If he doesn't admit he's wrong here, it's curtains for anything he says going forward.
Click to expand...

This is of course not even mentioning the FAA and ATC from Indianapolis, Herndon and New York who monitored the 4b flights starting from maintenance of the planes, to putting the souls on the planes, to radio contact with the crew and of course disembarking from the airports while all on radar and audio. A no planer would have to then submit that all this data is fabricated and everyone, which would include in the thousands involved. to be "in on the conspiracy". Its why i automatically block/ignore any and all "no planers".
 
questionitall said:
Oh really beechnut,
An instrument from the cockpit of one aircraft crash you investigated was ejected during the crash 300 feet away in perfect condition, you say. Did that aircraft slam into a building at an impossible rate of speed as well?

...

So NO, I don't trust the NTSB or the FAA at all!!!
Click to expand...
Update...

Yes, an instrument (like an AOA, or Airspeed Indicator) was in perfect condition. The aircraft slammed into the ground and the cockpit where the instrument was at impact, was destroyed at impact and burned with part of the aircraft.

Flight 11 and 175 were not at an impossible rate of speeds, that is a lie. Why do you lie about 9/11? What is an impossible speed for Flight 11 and 175, and why is it impossible.

The "impossible rate of speed" is an insane claim since the planes hit at the speeds seen on radar, and video/film. Why lie about 9/11? If you can, explain how the speeds of 11 and 175 were impossible?

Good luck.

Does this mean you will not fly in the USA, since you don't trust the FAA and NTSB. Got some evidence to support your trust issues? No
 
questionitall

All your attempts to prove the fuselage part is fake have failed, leaving you with... it couldn't have flown that far, It has to be fake... as your only evidence.

So all I have to do to prove you wrong is show one piece of flying debris that made it all the way out to WTC5.

Here's two. (actually 3, but who's counting.)


OdUk4Sp.gif


The place where the fuselage piece landed on WTC5 is at the point of the large red arrow.

irrxAyr.jpg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siYkDNbeRZk

I did start the long explanation of how the part made it all the way to the roof of WTC5 I may finish it when I have more time.
 
Last edited:
Edited by Agatha: 
Edited for rule 8

And NO, what you have to prove to me is two pieces of flying debris made their way out of WTC 2, then flew dead straight for about 500' then started dropping. It made it about 700' north just over the road between the Post Office and WTC7 then drifted with the wind back to WTC5!
That is precisely what you claimed in post #193 of this thread and I'm holding you to it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
questionitall said:
Edited by Agatha: 
Edited for rule 8
Click to expand...

I kinda liked it when you called me Mr. KnowItAll maybe I should keep it as my nom de guerre. Just so you know, I will always think of you as the Butt Joint Guy.... and laugh.

Actually what I said I would do, is explain HOW. Lets start with that.


So far all of your attempts to prove this piece of debris is fake has failed miserably. Thats because it is real. All you are left with is... There is no way that piece could - bla bla bla...


We know this piece did in fact go through the South Tower and land on top of WTC5. We can see it on video go in to the tower, and we can see photos of it laying on top of WTC5. The only mystery is what happened in between.

VHOHLJV.jpg


I'm going to start out with some facts.

Airplanes have air inside them. It's what the people inside the airplane breath.

A Boeing 767 contains about 19,500 cu. ft. of air. (from Jane's all the worlds aircraft)

Air has mass. It has a average mass weight of .078 pounds per cubic ft at sea level.

The air inside a Boeing 767 has a mass weight of about 1,500 pounds. (19,500 x .078)

The air inside the cabin was moving along with the aircraft. At the time of impact it was traveling at about 800 ft. per. sec.

So we have 19,500 cu ft of air with a mass weight of 1,500 lbs. traveling at 800 ft. per. sec. and with a combination of mass and velocity comes inertia. Newtons first law of motion. Every molecule of air inside that plane is an object in motion and it will want to continue at that speed and direction unless acted on by an outside force.

Next: Toroidal Vortexes. This is how an isolated mass of moving air travels through static air. (a blast of air as opposed to a steady stream like a jet exhaust)

Some examples of toroidal vortexes: This is a vortex cannon or hail cannon. It produces a vortex of about 60 cu. ft. of air traveling at about 200 mph.(depending on cannon size and fuel) and can travel for thousands of feet.

HJTttII.jpg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrgTtZXuj4w

This video will give you an idea of how long the vortex last and travels by the sound it makes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GteGbZeKsOI&frags=pl,wn


This is a micro burst. A mass of falling air that forms into a toroidal vortex. The average decent speed for the entire mass of one of these is about 60 mph. but because of the vortex it can produce horizontal wind speeds of 120 mph. when it contacts the ground.

6laA14G.jpg



This is a cross section drawing of a microburst.

9jG8yF1.jpg


I'm posting it because it shows the low pressures involved. (dark areas) The low pressures at the bottom are the ones produced by the ring vortex. The faster the ring spins the lower the pressure and the longer the vortex last. This is capable of carrying small objects but they have to be present when the vortex is formed.

The low pressure at the back is created by the wake of the ring. The faster the vortex travels through the air the lower the pressure will be. This is the low pressure wake that forms the visible contrail and produces the envelope that carries objects like the fuselage debris, Candace Williams's pocketbook, life vest, seat cushions, Satam's passport, ect. through the building. Objects in this envelope will most likely be from the plane since they are already traveling the same speed as the air.

Buoyancy: The air inside a toroidal vortex pretty much the same density as the air surrounding it. the low pressures will cause it to rise as it slows down, But for all intents and purposes it will travel a strait line with no gravitational arc in the brief few seconds after it's formed. Other debris will start a downward acceleration the moment it's in free air. With this knowledge you can visibly separate the objects being carried a vortex from the ones are not.

Visible contrails: These are the condensation trails formed by the first burst of air that exited the building. Notice how straight of a line it is, no gravitational arch. Evidence from the videos suggest that the mass of air broke up into about four sections, each producing a contrail.

uJdlCKO.jpg


The last vortex leaving the building should be the one most likely dragging the part you're interested in, since it was from the tail of the plane.

5p2oUgW.jpg


That should complete the ground work so you can have an understanding of HOW it happened. Next I'll show evidence that it DID happen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for that fascinating and informative post. It didn't even land on me before that the inertia of the mass of air inside the plane was so significant. Indeed that explains very well how the famous passport travelled without damage, and even how those heavier fragments made it through a long distance.

Personally I don't need evidence that it happened; that's convincing enough for me. Anyway you can be sure that I'll enjoy the explanation if you post it for questionitall.
 
Last edited:
Can you do me a favour and post this photo over at PFT in the proper thread. All these years and they still haven't figured out what part of the plane it came from. Even you with your "30 plus years experience working on commercial/passenger jet airliners." can't seem to figure it out.

nni8KSM.jpg


And if you could, please explain how this part :

HTCaed6.jpg


Brushed this pole: (arrow on right)

zp9MmXr.jpg


leaving this mark:

CXNA6em.png


Thanks.

Brian.
 
Last edited:
So now on to... Evidence that it did happen.

Ill post the videos this part shows up in one at a time. The power here is still on and off, so short post, so I don't lose my work.

I made this photo years ago. The part and condensation trail are visible. As you can see it is tracking a strait line no gravitational arch.

xJXnDkR.jpg


GIF from video, part circled.

nFDwpy2.gif


Link to video: (10:28 mark)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZWI4TlVsMc
 
The next video just barely caught the debris and contrail. You can see it zip by in the extreme lower left hand corner.

jGWh1oR.gif


Using a pan out shot from the same location, I overlaid a still shot from the video and drew in the path it traveled. This will give you another view from a different angle to determine it's trajectory.


gXBl6A0.jpg


Source video (8:08)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctjckFHtRJ4
 
In this video the fuselage is just barley visible spinning across the bottom of the screen under the red line. Gif is in slow motion, happens much faster in the video. Debris starts downward path just after crossing corner of the building.


ua8wXXd.gif


Overlay to show path.

PvWI0VC.jpg


1:57

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwKQXsXJDX4
 
Last edited:
waypastvne said:
I kinda liked it when you called me Mr. KnowItAll maybe I should keep it as my nom de guerre. Just so you know, I will always think of you as the Butt Joint Guy.... and laugh.

Actually what I said I would do, is explain HOW. Lets start with that.


So far all of your attempts to prove this piece of debris is fake has failed miserably. Thats because it is real. All you are left with is... There is no way that piece could - bla bla bla...


We know this piece did in fact go through the South Tower and land on top of WTC5. We can see it on video go in to the tower, and we can see photos of it laying on top of WTC5. The only mystery is what happened in between.

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/VHOHLJV.jpg?2[/qimg]

I'm going to start out with some facts.

Airplanes have air inside them. It's what the people inside the airplane breath.

A Boeing 767 contains about 19,500 cu. ft. of air. (from Jane's all the worlds aircraft)

Air has mass. It has a average mass weight of .078 pounds per cubic ft at sea level.

The air inside a Boeing 767 has a mass weight of about 1,500 pounds. (19,500 x .078)

The air inside the cabin was moving along with the aircraft. At the time of impact it was traveling at about 800 ft. per. sec.

So we have 19,500 cu ft of air with a mass weight of 1,500 lbs. traveling at 800 ft. per. sec. and with a combination of mass and velocity comes inertia. Newtons first law of motion. Every molecule of air inside that plane is an object in motion and it will want to continue at that speed and direction unless acted on by an outside force.

Next: Toroidal Vortexes. This is how an isolated mass of moving air travels through static air. (a blast of air as opposed to a steady stream like a jet exhaust)

Some examples of toroidal vortexes: This is a vortex cannon or hail cannon. It produces a vortex of about 60 cu. ft. of air traveling at about 200 mph.(depending on cannon size and fuel) and can travel for thousands of feet.

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/HJTttII.jpg[/qimg]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrgTtZXuj4w

This video will give you an idea of how long the vortex last and travels by the sound it makes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GteGbZeKsOI&frags=pl,wn


This is a micro burst. A mass of falling air that forms into a toroidal vortex. The average decent speed for the entire mass of one of these is about 60 mph. but because of the vortex it can produce horizontal wind speeds of 120 mph. when it contacts the ground.

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/6laA14G.jpg[/qimg]


This is a cross section drawing of a microburst.

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/9jG8yF1.jpg[/qimg]

I'm posting it because it shows the low pressures involved. (dark areas) The low pressures at the bottom are the ones produced by the ring vortex. The faster the ring spins the lower the pressure and the longer the vortex last. This is capable of carrying small objects but they have to be present when the vortex is formed.

The low pressure at the back is created by the wake of the ring. The faster the vortex travels through the air the lower the pressure will be. This is the low pressure wake that forms the visible contrail and produces the envelope that carries objects like the fuselage debris, Candace Williams's pocketbook, life vest, seat cushions, Satam's passport, ect. through the building. Objects in this envelope will most likely be from the plane since they are already traveling the same speed as the air.

Buoyancy: The air inside a toroidal vortex pretty much the same density as the air surrounding it. the low pressures will cause it to rise as it slows down, But for all intents and purposes it will travel a strait line with no gravitational arc in the brief few seconds after it's formed. Other debris will start a downward acceleration the moment it's in free air. With this knowledge you can visibly separate the objects being carried a vortex from the ones are not.

Visible contrails: These are the condensation trails formed by the first burst of air that exited the building. Notice how straight of a line it is, no gravitational arch. Evidence from the videos suggest that the mass of air broke up into about four sections, each producing a contrail.

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/uJdlCKO.jpg[/qimg]

The last vortex leaving the building should be the one most likely dragging the part you're interested in, since it was from the tail of the plane.

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/5p2oUgW.jpg[/qimg]

That should complete the ground work so you can have an understanding of HOW it happened. Next I'll show evidence that it DID happen.
Click to expand...

There is gravity affecting all the pieces. The ones with a larger aerial face will glide further in air as air will provide resistance to those pieces. The less aerial exposure/mass will fall without much benefit of the resistance of the air. I assume you mean the fuselage piece glided further onto WTC 5. Whereas the engine would arc in a more ballistic motion.
 
In the Scott Myers the part can be seen here. Part circled, path drawn. Vapour trail is very visible in video.

kRe1pJp.jpg
 
bknight said:
There is gravity affecting all the pieces. The ones with a larger aerial face will glide further in air as air will provide resistance to those pieces. The less aerial exposure/mass will fall without much benefit of the resistance of the air. I assume you mean the fuselage piece glided further onto WTC 5. Whereas the engine would arc in a more ballistic motion.
Click to expand...

No the part is not gliding. In fact it is spinning wildly. It is being carried in a pocket of fast moving low pressure air.
 
waypastvne said:
No the part is not gliding. In fact it is spinning wildly. It is being carried in a pocket of fast moving low pressure air.
Click to expand...

Spinning I could accept, a pocket of fast moving low pressure you will have to prove to me, especially over the distances you are describing.

Secondly the piece you have labelled "fuselage" may or may not have been the piece that landed on WTC 5. It could have been some other of the debris you have labelled. This is a couple of minutes study so I may be wrong, except for the fast moving low pressure air.
 
bknight said:
Spinning I could accept, a pocket of fast moving low pressure you will have to prove to me, especially over the distances you are describing.

Secondly the piece you have labelled "fuselage" may or may not have been the piece that landed on WTC 5. It could have been some other of the debris you have labelled. This is a couple of minutes study so I may be wrong, except for the fast moving low pressure air.
Click to expand...

I'm not finished yet. Power and internet just came back on.
 
waypastvne said:
Can you do me a favour and post this photo over at PFT in the proper thread. All these years and they still haven't figured out what part of the plane it came from. Even you with your "30 plus years experience working on commercial/passenger jet airliners." can't seem to figure it out.

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/nni8KSM.jpg?1[/qimg]

And if you could, please explain how this part :

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/HTCaed6.jpg?1[/qimg]

Brushed this pole: (arrow on right)

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/zp9MmXr.jpg?4[/qimg]

leaving this mark:

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/CXNA6em.png[/qimg]

Thanks.

Brian.
Click to expand...

There are two arrows in the second to last image, one of the pole and one pointing down behind the trees. What does the downward arrow refer?
 
bknight said:
...a pocket of fast moving low pressure you will have to prove to me, especially over the distances you are describing...
Click to expand...

Already done. Re-read WPV's posts of the last 24 or 48 hours again, open all links, watch videos.
 
bknight said:
There are two arrows in the second to last image, one of the pole and one pointing down behind the trees. What does the downward arrow refer?
Click to expand...


That is where AA77 starboard engine topiaryed the top of the tree. That threw the engine out of balance, which cracked the ceramic oil seals, and oil spewed out leaving the oil vapour trail seen in the gate cam videos.
 
In this video you can see the part coming from the lower left spinning around it's longitudinal axis in a straight line. Just before it reaches the north tower it stops spinning and starts tumbling, gravity takes over and it starts to accelerate downwards. This is the point where the low pressure envelope looses its grip on the debris and the vortex starts to break up.


DMyx5xL.gif


Source video 13:11



Now scroll back up to the GIF and watch this piece of debris. As you can see it is spinning AROUND a lateral axis. (axis is not located within it's mass and axis is 90 deg to direction of travel) Also notice how they are flying together in perfect formation.This piece of debris is caught up in the ring vortex.

9g4q13s.jpg


A state of the art visual representation that I made in photoshop illustrating what is happening in the above video.

uU2EY7i.jpg


When the camera pans out we get this shot. Path the debris traveled is marked. The piece did continue on to the closest corner of WTC1 but gets really small as the camera pans out.

rrzZ9hR.jpg


From the above videos you can lay out this approximate flight path. In the red part it is being carried by the vortex. In the yellow part it is momentum and gravity. In the green part it's wind and gravity. The green part is not caught on camera but doesn't need to be. WTC5 is directly downwind and your only evidence is "there is no way" all I have to prove is "yes there is a way" and show evidence for it. This is not the only part caught up in a vortex.The shadows on the wall of WTC1 show at least two more. I picked this one because it is the most likely.

5c9Y0Ov.jpg


I know you are not going to be happy unless I show you some windows. The clearest shot is when the part stops spinning and starts tumbling. Can I say 100% that these are windows? No. Can you say 100% that they aren't windows. No.


kfTYxfw.jpg


So questionitall do you have any questions?

Maybe you can get a mod to let you change your screen name to sorryiasked

OK, I've done my part. You claimed you had evidence that this part was fake. Let's see it.
 
Oystein said:
And you are...? Sorry if you identify yourself later - tl;dr
Wow - You were silent almost 9 years - and this detail now riles you up so much you have to blow your cover??
Click to expand...

Now that I'm expected to respond
Edited by Agatha: 
Removed possible rule 8 breach
I can't hyperlink the videos and evidence I require to make a further fool of your chatmate. Not until I've made 15 posts that is.
Edited by Agatha: 
Edited namecalling which is a breach of rule 0 and rule 12. Will you please familiarise yourself with the rules to which you agreed on joining this forum.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
questionitall said:
Now that I'm expected to respond
Edited by Agatha: 
Edited previously moderated content
I can't hyperlink the videos and evidence I require to make a further fool of your chatmate. Not until I've made 15 posts that is.
Edited by Agatha: 
Edited to match previously moderated post
.
Click to expand...

Name calling is not necessary or expected. I guess you'll have to put me into that category also, because there is no conspiracy during the events of 9/11, other than a groups of Arab's that planned and carried out the attacks. So go ahead and attempt to present your thinking.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
questionitall said:
... ...!
...
Click to expand...

Rational people figured out 9/11 in hours and days. 9/11 truth followers can't figure out 9/11 after decades and years.

Truth is aircraft parts can survive and endup all over the place, just like flying a ruler in grade school. Too bad 9/11 truth had banned physics.

The record for figuring out 9/11 and taking action goes to Flight 93 Passengers, the prize for not figuring out 9/11 and doing nothing to improve their delusional position goes to 9/11 truth.

Most posters here figured out 9/11, do you need help to do the same? Physics?
 
Last edited:
questionitall said:
Now that I'm expected to respond
Click to expand...


Well I'm glad I didn't miss that. I did a lot of work just to watch you explode like that.... and it was beautiful.

Thanks for playing.

(I still want my banana).
Edited by Agatha: 
Edited for response to moderated content
 
Last edited by a moderator:
waypastvne said:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/...0814566&mode=threaded&start=100#entry10814566


I'm a pilot... and I seem to have punched your buttons.


Where's my banana ?
Click to expand...

I want a coke and candy bar... skip the banana

Don't tell him it does not matter how the piece of the aircraft got there, and does not change the acts of 19 failed humans associated with ubl.

How many bananas do we get for landing in the weather at 2400 RVR?
How many bananas do we get for landing in gusty 25 knot crosswinds, when the navigator says it was <25 knots (USAF limit at the time, and admin limit, not an actual aircraft/physics limit), but made a mistake, it was >25 knots. What was priceless was the confession later, that he made a mistake, and I told him, "if I can't get it all straight under control, then it is my limit, and I would go around, skip the crash".

Flying is easy, Flying is hard, it is all relative to the task at hand.
 
questionitall said:
Now that I'm expected to respond
Edited by Agatha: 
Removed possible rule 8 breach
I can't hyperlink the videos and evidence I require to make a further fool of your chatmate. Not until I've made 15 posts that is.
Edited by Agatha: 
Edited namecalling which is a breach of rule 0 and rule 12. Will you please familiarise yourself with the rules to which you agreed on joining this forum.
Click to expand...

Haha oh dear FSM!
questionitall had half of their posts moved to AAH because of blatant, obvious, and no doubt intentional breaches of the Membership Agreement - almost like a countdown to ticking off all Rules.

And then, in one of the posts moved to AAH, q. says q. will no longer post here, only at PFFFT, where, as questionitall puts it, there is no censorship.

LOL

Is there anybody here who is NOT blocked or otherwise censored at PFFFT?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom