Electron microscope analysis of steel spheres from WTC site

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Another witness who reports of bombs going off in the basement of a WTC tower before the planes had hit:


[/ QUOTE ]

So why didn't the collapse begin then? Anyone with eyes can see the collapse begin where the planes hit.

[/ QUOTE ]


That's an unusual way to deal with facts that require investigations (which have been previously completely handwaved and put away in the memoryhole).

[/ QUOTE ]

It's an entirely appropriate way to consider the plausibility of bombs in the basement. People make mistakes, make things up, so we examine if the report fits. It does not. The buildings did not collapse from bottom up, therefore your unsourced claim is not plausible.

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to mistake the burden of proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

Demonstrate why I must explain every piece of crushed concrete to disprove a conspiracy, but you don't have to prove the existence of remote control equipment installed in the planes for your collapse theory to work. You are a pseudointellectual.

[kerowo]

Maybe these were involved:

[Nielsio]

I'm looking to get this debunked; can you guys give it a try?

"Count-down heard"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgAJ4sKUp8g

"Get back, the building is about to explode"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm looking to get this debunked; can you guys give it a try?

"Count-down heard"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgAJ4sKUp8g

"Get back, the building is about to explode"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ

[/ QUOTE ]
The first one is silly. There are thousands of people who swear they've had sex with UFOs. And they genuinely believe it. This guy is merely talking about some count down he's supposed to have heard - lol? They wire up all the buildings without detection in the greatest secrecy, but then stand in the street among onlookers counting down to zero. el-oh-el. As for the second, you are aware there were massive fuel reserves under WTC7, aren't you? Of course people are going to expect it to blow.

Besides, I could possibly accept a WTC7 demolition scenario if there was more evidence of it. There could be many reasons for doing it. But I hope you have the logic to realize that most of those potential reasons have nothing to do with 911 being an inside job.

[Nielsio]

I'm looking to get this debunked; can you guys give it a try?


Pilot who flew 2 planes used on 9/11 doesn't believe official story
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...1&hl=en-GB
59s

Former Air Force fighter pilot Russ Wittenberg, who flew over 100 combat missions in Vietnam, sat in the cockpit for Pan Am and United for over 30 years, and previously flew two of the actual airplanes that were allegedly hijacked on 9/11 (United Airlines Flight 175 &amp; 93), does not believe the government's official 9/11 conspiracy theory... RUSS WITTENBERG: "I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11... Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for... a so-called terrorist to train on a 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns,.. pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's... <font color="red">I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it.</font>"

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm looking to get this debunked; can you guys give it a try?


Pilot who flew 2 planes used on 9/11 doesn't believe official story
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...1&amp;hl=en-GB
59s

Former Air Force fighter pilot Russ Wittenberg, who flew over 100 combat missions in Vietnam, sat in the cockpit for Pan Am and United for over 30 years, and previously flew two of the actual airplanes that were allegedly hijacked on 9/11 (United Airlines Flight 175 &amp; 93), does not believe the government's official 9/11 conspiracy theory... RUSS WITTENBERG: "I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11... Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for... a so-called terrorist to train on a 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns,.. pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's... I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it."

[/ QUOTE ]

You're really starting to give me the [censored] man. Firstly, you make no attempt to address the substantive debunkings given by others. Secondly, you post total drivel without the most basic fact checking. Third, you actually hurt the cause of those who care about the real crimes of the government.

You really are a fool about this stuff, and overall a pretty worthless human being while you're on this insane crusade.

To answer the points in your latest idiot post:

[ QUOTE ]
and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots

[/ QUOTE ]
The 767 hit the towers at around 470mph. According to the impartial site below, this its ECONOMICAL crusing speed. Similarly for the 707, which has a faster crusinging speed.
http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=103
[ QUOTE ]
Max cruising speed 914km/h (493kt), economical cruising speed 854km/h (461kt)

[/ QUOTE ]
You can find these very figures on the sites of conspiracy theorists who argue that the building was designed to take these speeds, as the impact speeds were below the max cruising speeds of these jets.

I won't even bother addressing the rest of this stupid crap.

Aren't you in your late 20s? You'd think someone your age would be starting to get a bit more sense.

[Mr_Moore]

at this site, http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm, why don't they debunk the theories against the pentagon?

[Nielsio]

I believe he is most specifically talking about Flight 77, the one that allegedly hit the Pentagon, and it's high speed, high precision manouvres.

American 77 Final Maneuver
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzR-q0ijbV0


More here:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

[Mr_Moore]

"But this is deceptive because while building 7 wasn't hit by an airliner, it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open, it easily tilted over to reach building 7."

How could the tower tilt over when it collapsed on itself?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
at this site, http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm, why don't they debunk the theories against the pentagon?

[/ QUOTE ]

Regarding the dust cloud:

[ QUOTE ]
Not ONE person, even the ones trapped INSIDE the towers, complained of dusty air burning their skin.
http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm


[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]

National hero William Rodriguez
"It burned my face, it burned my skin"
@ 6m21s
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...7211&amp;hl=nl


[/ QUOTE ]