Steve 700

Did you see those pictures directly above your post that I am answering here. They are damn good proof that there was no airliner wreckage at either of those 2 locations and why the wreckage from an airliner actually looks like. You are demented and unbelievably stupid, demon possessed or I don't know what, but there is something seriously wrong with you that you can look at that and just dismiss it all. You had absolutely no reason to put me on your ignore list and you deserve to be harassed to no end for doing that when you don't have the integrity or the guts to admit why you did it. Can you understand that, you gutless degenerate. A person of decency and integrity would never consider doing somebody like that, as you have done. only your rotten, Karma back at you -- and rightly so
Where is your self-awareness. How do you sleep at night, knowing what a dishonest scumbag you are???. You come up with all this technical s**t thinking that is going to make people think you're smart. Who you think you're fooling??? Not a single bit of that crap you put out proves that the fall of those buildings weren't planned demolition. Your a self-deluded fraud, a degenerate and an i***t. What kind of a punk do you think you are that you can just ignore valid questions and then insult other people. Grow up, have some self-awareness and Be a MAN.
Your just a wast of everyone's time who is stupid enough to listen to you STOPS WITH THE BULL S**T & SHOW THE PICTURES or AERIAL VIDEO FOOTAGE PROVING YOUR ASSERTIONS or ADMIT YOU JUST DON'T KNOW

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

"Investigators contradicted the FDR data"? Now there's good laugh. What investigators would those be? Just more amateur 9/11 t***hers pretending they know more than God.

Your entire CD theory is also one helluva laugh. Only gullible fools could possibly believe that CD was even a remote possibility. Maybe you should just stick to accessorizing your Fatima Barbie doll and let the adults handle the facts.

According to the FBI, there were 85 video surveillance cameras in the vicinity of the Pentagon that might have captured some parts of the Pentagon event on 9/11. The FBI confiscated some of the recordings from those cameras very shortly after the event, and the rest over the following days. This act by the government fueled the suspicions of those questioning a large plane impact into the Pentagon. It is known that the FBI confiscated much 9/11 evidence, including evidence at all four crash sites; thus their confiscations at the Pentagon were typical, not unusual. However, since the two videos that were released do appear to contain useful information about what hit the Pentagon, we should not automatically assume the FBI is being dishonest here.

Why very few cameras captured the impact event

There are a number of valid reasons why only 4 of the 85 videos were released by the FBI in response to a FOIA (Freedom Of Information Act) request filed in 2004, which was fulfilled in 2006. Because of a number of factors (listed below and detailed in the footnotes) only 2 of the 85 cameras captured any useful footage of the plane-impact event.

Most of those 85 cameras were not aimed in the direction of the Pentagon and/or at the part of the Pentagon in question.
Most cameras were located a considerable distance from the impact event, and virtually all surveillance cameras had wide-angle (fisheye) lenses which cause some geometric distortion and render distant objects at very low resolution.
Many cameras had obstructed views of the Pentagon impact area.
In 2001, virtually all surveillance cameras had low spacial resolution.
In 2001, most or all surveillance cameras recorded at low frame rates (low temporal resolution), generally at one frame per second.

The high speed of the plane, accelerating to over 550 mph, caused some image blurring and offered a low chance of catching more than a single frame of the plane, given the low-recorded frame rate (one frame/sec).

History

The well-known “5-frames” from a Pentagon surveillance camera were first released in March of 2002. The only frame that appears to include the plane has a post obstructing the camera’s view of almost everything but the tail fin.

In December 2004, Judicial Watch, a public interest group, filed a FOIA request on behalf of Scott Bingham. The request was for surveillance camera footage that might show the plane approaching and/or hitting the Pentagon.

The FBI identified 85 surveillance cameras that were located in the vicinity of the Pentagon that might have revealed the plane. After the Zacarias Moussaoui trial ended in 2006, the Department of Defense released 4 of those videos2, including a 200 frame extended version of the 5-frame sequence first released in 2002.

Completely new to the public in 2006 were the 183 frames that were released from a second identical surveillance camera located adjacent to the first camera within the same security checkpoint. One of these new frames provided an unobstructed view of the plane, but at such low contrast and resolution it was not initially noticed or reported as such. Instead, what appears to be the same white smoke seen in the crucial frame from the first camera (released in 2002) is also seen at the edge of the second camera’s crucial frame. The shape of the white smoke was mistakenly identified in news media as the plane’s nose.3

What the two Pentagon camera recordings reveal

Both of the two Pentagon surveillance cameras were in a security check point located about 833 feet north of the impact point. Both cameras show what appears to be white smoke trailing the approach of a rapidly moving object. The frames that followed the impact of that object show a massive orange fireball, quickly followed by a rising column of black smoke, and then debris fragments raining down and landing near the two cameras six to nine seconds after the impact.4

The second Pentagon camera had an unobstructed view, and has one frame which appears to show a plane near the right edge of the frame, and appears to have the same white smoke trail that is seen in the 5-frame sequence. In a way similar to the identical first (5-frames) camera, the recordings from this second camera yielded a low resolution image of distant objects due in part to their wide-angle lenses, so the images do not make clear what is revealed by the second camera’s frames either. But what does appear in the crucial frame from the second camera resembles a somewhat out-of-focus airliner, including the tail fin and trailing smoke as seen in the adjacent “5-frame” camera.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Somebody unscrewed your skull cap and poured in a load of bulls**t. You're so full of conspiratorial pablum it's a wonder you can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Science, real science, empirical science, applied by professionals with integrity never found a thread of evidence that explosives had been used anywhere in the WTC. World Trade Center - Evidence Based Research

Steve700

How dare you say to me: "WTF are you talking about? What pictures and aerial video footage are you referring to?" As if I did not present to you plenty of pictorial and video evidence, both of the Pentagon minutes after the explosion, and in that field while things were still smoking. I'm not going to print out all those pictures again and go searching looking for those helicopter videos. But Payne just posted a fair number of the Pentagon pictures as well as the wreckage from another airliner crash so you can see what the aftermath of an airliner crashes look like. You can plainly see there is NO wreckage and how a sane person can look at that evidence I submitted to you, that you probably didn't even look at, and still deny that an airliner crashed into the Pentagon and out in that field is beyond me. You're just plane crazy or demonically demented. Take a look here and you should realize that the photos that Payne put up, and even those alone should be enough to convince any rational person that the government's story, and I mean the whole thing, is a lying fraud perpetrated by our government to get the American people in favor of making war against the Islamic countries of the Mideast. (Partially to soften and democratize Mideast Islam and for greater influential control over our source of petroleum. See all the pictures at the bottom of the page this link will take you to: http://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-107953-97.html.

Stop ignoring and denying t***h. Those pictures you will see absolutely prove the whole thing is nothing but a damn lie put out by our government, even though it is but a very small fraction of the total evidence. Grow up, have some self-awareness and Be a MAN. And if you can't do that. Know that I am going to keep on keeping on until you man up, stop lying to yourself and deal with reality as any mature person should. STOPS WITH THE BULL S**T & SHOW THE PICTURES or AERIAL VIDEO FOOTAGE PROVING YOUR ASSERTIONS or ADMIT YOU JUST DON'T KNOW

(And by the way, I did not read your post. As long as you continue to prove you have no integrity by thinking that you can ignore and dismiss realities you find uncomfortable (while expecting others to consider and address your points), I can only realize there is no point in trying to exchange ideas back and forth with you since you have proven yourself not worthy of being taken seriously)

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

If my posts are so offensive to your tender sensibilities, then stop responding to them.

Steve700

Not a Chance. It's not your posts that are offensive, it's your immaturity, your lack of personal integrity, your willful self-delusion, your t***h and reality avoidance syndrome, it's your Automatic Knee Jerk ignoring, denial and dismissal of valid proofs, presented to you, that the government's story absolutely cannot be true. It's your stunted emotional and intellectual development that displays itself in the character flaw of you wanting what you want, when you want it and you're going to have it come hell or high water. I find that kind of degenerate lack of discipline. willful blindness self delusion to be a d********g character flaw in an old man.

And in your other post how dare you say to me: "WTF are you talking about? What pictures and aerial video footage are you referring to?" As if I did not present to you plenty of pictorial and video evidence, both of the Pentagon minutes after the explosion, and in that field while things were still smoking. I'm not going to print out all those pictures again and go searching looking for those helicopter videos. But Payne just posted a fair number of the Pentagon pictures as well as the wreckage from another airliner crash so you can see what the aftermath of an airliner crashes look like. You can plainly see there is NO wreckage and how a sane person can look at that evidence I submitted to you, that you probably didn't even look at, and still deny that an airliner crashed into the Pentagon and out in that field is beyond me. You're just plane crazy or demonically demented. Take a look here and you should realize that the photos that Payne put up, and even those alone should be enough to convince any rational person that the government's story, and I mean the whole thing, is a lying fraud perpetrated by our government to get the American people in favor of making war against the Islamic countries of the Mideast. (Partially to soften and democratize Mideast Islam and for greater influential control over our source of petroleum. See all the pictures at the bottom of the page this link will take you to: http://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-107953-97.html.

Stop ignoring and denying t***h. Those pictures you will see absolutely prove the whole thing is nothing but a damn lie put out by our government, even though it is but a very small fraction of the total evidence. Grow up, have some self-awareness and Be a MAN. And if you can't do that. Know that I am going to keep on keeping on until you man up, stop lying to yourself and deal with reality as any mature person should. STOPS WITH THE BULL S**T & SHOW THE PICTURES or AERIAL VIDEO FOOTAGE PROVING YOUR ASSERTIONS or ADMIT YOU JUST DON'T KNOW

Jean Deaux

Far, far too many witnesses have repudiated the government nonsense to give it any credence. Physicists, engineers, firefighters, police officers, even a CIA agent and a retired general have said the government story is cockamemy. Thermo nitrates were the explosive of choice but the biggest difficulty was getting the vast amounts of explosive into the buildings along with the wiring and fusing devices. The evidence is overwhelming if you'll only take a look.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Yeah, obviously it is easy for poorly educated people who were never taught critical thinking to be overwhelmed by conspiracy theories. If you ever discover a single thread of evidence to support your claims, please share. Until then, stay overwhelmed.

Steve700

I guess you didn't read what your own link brings a person to. (right side towards the bottom of the box) I cut & paste it for you & underlined the important pertinent part. You own link is telling you the government study is bull s**t. World Trade Center - Evidence Based Research

Who is the Author of this website?
I am a private citizen not affiliated with any group who was quite surprised to learn that the technical history of the WTC collapses as written is fundamentally false. Direct measurements extracted from the visual record of the collapses grossly contradict history as it is generally presented.

In the course of research I was able to collect a record of movement of all 3 collapsed buildings that was verifiably superior to and grossly contradicted the record provided by U.S. Government agencies. I was able to correspond with other independent researchers who provided measurements and documented observables on a level far more intricate than that which previously existed. This website and corresponding book are a compilation of that collected data.

I told you it was a bunch of opinion. Now Grow Up, have some self-awareness and Be a MAN. And if you can't do that. Know that I am going to keep on keeping on until you man up, stop lying to yourself and deal with reality as any mature person should. STOPS WITH THE BULL S**T & SHOW THE PICTURES or AERIAL VIDEO FOOTAGE PROVING YOUR ASSERTIONS or ADMIT YOU JUST DON'T KNOW[/quote]

payne1000

Massive explosive debris clouds comprise much more than a single thread of evidence.
Huge explosive sounds also prove your endless denials to be nothing but deliberate lies.
https://youtu.be/VwjRaadx-QU

whole2th

Real science? Yours, Blade Runner is "totalitarian science". 'T***h' as most good human beings consider it, isn't in Blade Runner's lexicon.

And about 'integrity' ... you and I are in integrity with our destinal resolve. Yours toward the dark ... mine toward the light.

Jean Deaux

:


I'll match my education with yours, any day so get off the poorly educated slant. Perhaps you just ignored the testimony of the retired Admiral that fought any thought of a conspiracy until he began to investigate. He is now a strong supporter of the conspiracy theory. Had you read my opinion above you should have found that there are many, many highly qualified experts that do not believe the government nonsense. I believe your opinion is set in cement and nothing will ever change your point of view. Stay submerged in stubborn ignorance of the actual cause as explained to you by your government gurus. There is not a thread of evidence, it is a cable.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

I have repeatedly stated that I have never relied solely on the "record provided by U.S. Government agencies" for the history and science of the 9/11 tragedy.

There are many page links on the Evidence Based Research website, and each page contains links to address specific points. Obviously you chose to ignore all the information provided. If you had gone a bit further you would have found that the compilers of this research not only pointed out the errors in the NIST investigation, but also the absurdity of the controlled demolition theory.

Architects and Engineers for 9-11 T***h Misrepresentations
It is impossible to discuss the mechanics of demolition outside of a realistic description of the actual collapse progression mechanism of each tower. Ironically, the existing technical history of the buildings describe neither collapse progression nor the collapse initiation process in a remotely accurate way. Within the official history collapse progression is described in the archaic language of "blocks" and the collapse initiation movement is grossly falsified. There is no realistic concept of either collapse progression or initiation within academic or government literature.

Like Bazant, AE911T also misrepresents the collapse progression mechanisms by describing them in terms of blocks. Both notions of collapse progression are expressed in terms of block mechanics. This is shown within the wikipedia portrayal of the collapse progressions. But AE911T takes an extreme view compared with that of Bazant. In the "official" version according to the wikilink, the upper block crushed to lower block until striking the earth and crushing itself. In the AE911T version the upper block is incapable of crushing the lower one to earth, hence the collapse progression required assistance in the form of intentional destruction.

Both versions express collapse progression incorrectly in terms of homogeneous blocks, but AE911T claims the upper portion cannot descend to earth without the lower portion being removed deliberately. By taking such an extreme view, AE911T treats demolition as no less than the equivalent to total decimation of the structural frame. Even though both descriptions are provably incorrect, AE911T takes what is by far the losing position in any debate between them.

According to these extreme views expressed by David Chandler and Anders Borkman, AE911T takes the position that a demolition based on destablization of an upper portion to create the conditions for a highly controlled collapse utilizing gravity is not a possibility. As a result, AE911T takes the unreasonably extreme position that 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking must have been "pulverized" in mid-air by an extreme number of explosive devices. They take the extreme position that multi-ton steel sections ejected up to 600 ft laterally were somehow thrown by extremely forceful explosive devices.

Just as labels of "g****l w*****g denier" or "holocaust denier" are commonly used within the media, so the AE911T position on the collapse progressions of WTC1 and 2 can be considered to place them in the unreasonable position of being "gravity deniers". This odd, unreasonable position on the possibility of self-sustaining progressive floor collapse within the OOS regions once certain initial conditions are reached leads to an ever increasing number of demonstrably incorrect claims.

A careful, surgical and steered demolition is ruled out as a possibility and only methods that require absurdly large blasts and devices on most every floor are considered. In t***h, the moments leading up to and during the collapse initiation sequence are the places to look carefully for signs of demolition. But as long as both the official version of history and AE911T describe the propagation of collapse progression in terms of blocks, no meaningful discussion of the most relevant structural questions is possible. Because the true collapse modes are not included within the historic record of either (false) choice, a false dichotomy is taken to represent historical fact. AE911T and the NIST are represented in the popular media as having a large, unbridgeabe gap between them in that the NIST accepts the possibility of a gravity driven collapse progression while AE911T takes the extreme, unnecessary position that collapse progression is impossible without outside assistance.

Reassessing the Question of Demolition
As has been demonstrated, the actual patterns, particulate flows and structural movements of the collapsing buildings are quite complex. What a person sees within images of the collapses largely depends through what lens the buildings are being viewed. In this sense the collapsing buildings themselves are similar to a Rorschach inkblot test.

Within an environment of confusion, people often tend to see what they want to believe, changing the collapsing buildings into wh**ever they need them to be to maintain ones sense of "reality", ones ingrained sense of "right and wrong" or "good and bad".

As demonstrated in parts 2 and 3, The global attributes of the collapses of each tower are best viewed as massive chains of progressive floor collapses, which is quite different from the way the collapses are viewed through much of the written record, including the NIST reports.

In part 3 it was also shown that viewing the collapses through the NIST lens while viewing any opposition to the NIST viewpoint only through the lens of groups like AE911T will inevitably result in incorrect beliefs.

Each of these viewpoints, or lenses, will frame the question of collapse, anomaly, or the controversial subject of demolition in a different way. Through the NIST lens, no contradictions or anomalies suggesting demolition can be seen because observables and measurables are basically fabricated to fit their particular theory.

The ejection patterns are fabricated.

The earliest movements are fabricated.

Ejections witnessed during the collapse progressions are ignored.

Viewing the question of collapse or demolition only through the lens of AE911T, on the other hand, results in the belief that massive chains of progressive floor collapses are not naturally possible. In part 3 it was shown that both viewpoints suffered from the following main weaknesses:

1) Poor observation sk**ls: Recognition of observable and measurable building features is considered optional or unnecessary.

2) No verification of claims: Incapacity or unwillingness to verify claims. A lack of awareness that independent verification is possible.

3) Use of surrogate models: Models for building behavior are accepted as true even though they have little or no correspondence with what was observed.

Readdressing The Question of Demolition: WTC1
Readdressing The Question of Demolition: WTC2
Readdressing The Question of Demolition: WTC7
Accurate Collapse History of WTC 1
Accurate Collapse History of WTC 2
Accurate Collapse History of WTC 2

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Yeah, you are a self-exalted saint, aren't you? Your holier-than-thou attitude and stilted speech is a symptom exhibited through a person's communication of a thought disorder in schizophrenia indicated by speech content that is inappropriately pompous, legalistic, philosophical, or quaint. This element of cognitive disorder is also exhibited as a symptom in the narcissistic personality disorder.

Jean Deaux

:


Something about hook line and sinker and you took it all. Very convenient explanation but the fact remains, out of 85 cameras, none came up with any definitive evidence. Why not look at the hole in the building and try to explain how a large, soft bodied airliner made a hole so small? Where were the scoops which would have had to have been made in the lawn by an air liner flying so low as to make the hole in the wall? How did the soft nose on the "airplane" penetrate 7 walls in the building? It couldn't but a missile with a hardened nose could. Where was all the wreckage from an airliner: landing gear, engines, fuselage and wing bits, seats, passenger body parts, luggage, black boxes, etc? Why was it that the only aircraft part found was an engine turbine wheel that originated in the engine of a USAF AGM 86D cruise missile? Better go back and rethink your theory based on hard evidence rather than a wispy, out of focus image on a photo. But that is up to you. Sometimes after you have grasped a straw, it is hard to let go.