Wrong on every count.

The fireball set alight trees some distance ahead of the imapact. The earth WAS scorched.

They DID find human bodies - in pieces - littered all around the crash site.

They DID find wreckage. I showed you some pictures!

I don't see why people disregard the facts - and just keep claiming the same old thing. Of course - if one refuses to ever look at the real evidence, one will never be satisfied.

It's simply intellectual dishonesty - to keep claiming things which have been FULLY SATISFIED. At least recognise that you reject all the evidence, and prefer instead to go with your instincts.......aka your wider political beliefs.

Clearly, the conspiracy view of 911 serves to sustain a paranoid political worldview - facts do not matter. Conspiracy theorists reject THE FACTS and THE EVIDENCE - instead preferring to cling fantasy - so as to sustain their belief.

To call such stuff "Truth-seeking" is astonishing dis-ingenuousness. It's avoiding the truth.

No planes? Holograms? Hilarious. Oh well.

 

I still can't believe we somehow shifted from that 45 minute video from page 5, you gotta love this pointless debates, let's just ignore something that actually proves something and none of us can't disapprove, I still can't believe, I will make my wallpaper that plain peaking trough that tower in same shape he came in like warm knife trough butter, that's the greatest proofs of all, but continue, let's make it longer and even more pointless

 

now explain me how it is possible that the grass under the pieces of metal in pics u posted didn t burn when the metal that was supposed to be hot bacause of the explosion of the plane touched the ground.

u re smart,when u can t explain something u skip it and move on

 

How can hollow plastic nose cone on same plane stay the same after going trough building, but on other hand have dent when hit some bird?



Thanks again duskwings for that video, really folks, it's scientific, practical, guy disapproved all their "arguments" and statements, used their own words to do that in some cases(that's freaking awesome) or made his own experiments, showed you how everything is done, it's his line of work, it doesn't get better than that, only to close your eyes and try to erase it from memory, that way it might go away *no*

 

That plane wing "appears" to go behind that building....because it does. The building was between the camera and the WTC.

It proves nothing at all.

And as for "disappearing wings" - it's wild that people who work in a digital medium (which is all about retaining fidelity) can be taken in by digital artifacts in a low quality movie hosted by YouTube (which itself introduces serious compression artifacts!). The wing is moving against the flat background colour of the Tower Try watching Tennis on a highly compressed video signal - THE BALL DISAPPEARS!!!! AMAZING!!! Must be using HOLOGRAPHIC TENNIS BALLS, right?

How do you know the pieces of metal pictured were so hot? There's no reason to think so.



See the burnt area where the fireball from crash caused burning trees, etc?

NO trace of it?



Not sure what you expect......but it just isn't true that it crashed "without trace".



There's no evidence to sustain ideas of a conspiracy whereas there's enormous amounts of evidence to support the mundane but bloody obvious - hijackers, plane crashes, dead people. Disturbing that people are SO committed to conspiracy such that they'll ignore proper evidence and instead create fantasy (new technology etc) to sustain their belief - and it is a belief - a political belief. That's what Conspiracy Theory re 911 is - a means to sustain a particular worldview - it has nothing to do with the evidence, that much is clear.

 

Serioulsy?u expect that a plane full of fuel bursts to pieces and those pieces remain cold so when they land on the ground the grass underneath them doesn t burn?

U are the only one who doeesn t see the evidence of a conspiracy,but againto support your ideas u only skip what u can t explain in spite of all the evidences that u r showed,it s useless to go on with the discussion

u would be right if this principle applied to the whole plane and not just a part of it

 

Agree, that's how politicians do their "debates", avoiding real answers, answering what they can and relying on bad trolling technique to shift conversation into endless circle of nonsense, it's rather pointless *yes*

 

I would have expected to see physical evidence of a plane

 

I'll address anything.

How hot was it when it hit the grass? You tell me?

You don't know. Obviously.

But don't let that stop you from concluding....whatever you want.



No scorched grass!!! Must be fake!!!

Hmmm.

And thern - how did this landing gear/wheel assembly manage to hit WTC and yet reach ground level - with its rubber wheel still intact? YOur conclusion - IT WASN'T ON THE PLANE!!!

There was physical evidence of a plane. Some windows and fuselage, some of the landing gear, personal items, bits of dead people, the Flight Recorders...........

Watch a jet disappear!

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/other-shows/videos/destroyed-in-seconds-jet-plane-obliterated.htm

 

for such a large plane very little was actually seen at crash site, very very little, by the way freshly scorched grass should look black in colour (its been burnt, carbon deposits) not brown in colour like bare soil or dead grass in your photo example

the wheel assembly, not much carbon deposits appear be on it considering the fireball it went through, the tyre shows no evidence of burning/melting)?

the video, and how fast was the jet travelling?, with those rockets?

so by looking at that video then looking at the planes crashing into the twin towers at a much slower speed and being much larger, through reinforced concrete and steel girders, how did the planes pass through the towers without any plane debris falling back from the initial impact (newtons 3rd law of motion, action / re-action which is what is shown in your video)?

 

In 1995 Valujet Flight 592 crashed in Florida - nothing but pieces of people were found, and a few chunks of plane.

Here's the crash site, HOURS after the crash.





592 didn't crash!!!

Really?

Flight 93 engine, apparently:

 

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_90.htm

 

you haven't answered my question, concerning your video of the jet plane video, why was there no plane debris falling from the impact side of the towers?

with regards to the 1995 Valujet Flight 592 there is also some doubt about that particular crash and whether it happened? Notice a pattern?

 

The video says the jet was going 480mph.

Flight 93 :

Pentagon:

WTC:

So, faster (and FAR more mass) than athe jet in the video. IE the 911 planes would be under much greater forces. If lower forces can obliterate a much smaller, and slower jet - much bigger forces can surely obliterate a bigger one travelling faster.

 

so what you are saying is, according to your quotes, the planes hitting the twin towers should have disintegrated on contact with the twin towers? (keep in mind that a plane is a hollow tube with wings attached, built from aluminium, hitting a reinforced concrete and steel structure)

a 40% angle of impact would have meant a forward ejection of soil/debris at the point of impact, and the plane would have broken into pieces and probably bounced, not be swallowed up by the ground completely as the official report says

 

As in 'break into smaller parts'? Why not? Surely it did. You mean to suggest the WTC shouldn't have been damaged by it, at all? I don't see why that would be true. The buildings were damaged by the planes flying into them - but it was surely the (unfought) fires that did the real damage.

 

watch your jet video then watch plane crashing into tower, are they similar? (clue - they should be)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13XfwKsdrj0

 

There's some great debating going on here from both sides of the debate

I'm definitely siding with controlled demolition, 100%

What I'd like to add to anyone debating for the inside job/controlled demolition team, keep it simple

Some of the debates can get information rich, I'm struggling to keep up with what you're talking about

You can win any debate with freefall in building 7 and the exploding twin towers, we can prove that with maths & physics, we don't even need to debate anything else

The thing with Shanksville & the Pentagon is there's a lot of speculation surrounding what happened, even though I doubt the official story, I don't get involved in those debates as I feel the evidence is conclusive with the towers & building 7 so try to concentrate on bringing that to peoples attention

That's not to say we should stop looking into the other two events of 9/11, but with WTC7 & the towers it's simple enough for anyone to understand, so i wish everyone would try and draw the focus of attention to them

But yeah, great debating chaps, it makes fascinating reading

 

I agree but they are all connected (allegedly) a lack of physical evidence?

 

in case u feel like watching another video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIfMw7mEDNk