Holographic Planes & Blue Beam

[zorgon]

No, but I remember seeing several videos showing people witnessing the event.

AH!  So people had their cameras ready before the planes hit so they could record the event? Can you point me to one of these videos that isn't one of the faked media ones?

That doesn't mean they do not exist.

They say Aliens exist too  but it would help convince me if you could produce ONE

Are you assuming that nobody watched the events happening and only got second hand versions?

No I am saying no one watched the events until the explosion happened   Are you telling me people were expecting something and just sat there waiting? Sure you here an explosion it will get your attention

You will say "ZOMG!! WTF happened? and some one will say  "An airplane just hit the building"  and from then on you will remember seeing an airplane   Add to that the media fakery and a week after the event the mind set becomes an actual memory

I was in a car driving to a job site when it happened  One of the early reports that came out said the Shanksville plane was SHOT DOWN... Rumsfeld is caught on video saying it was SHOT DOWN...

So what happened to THAT part of the story?  Well it changed to some heros wrestling the box cutter wielding terrorist and then the plane crashed

Look if your happy believing some Islamic terrorists with basic flying skills pulled this off and where found to still be alive later... then be my guest. It won't change anything anyway.

Even if Bush got up on the podium and says  "Yeah we did 9/11.  so what?" What are you going to do about it?

Yeah that is what I though... nothing   And THEY know it

It would sound something like THIS

[ArMaP]

You can HUFF and you can PUFF...  but you haven't explained why Edna was able to stand there in that hole supposedly hot enough to melt core beams

Who said that the hole was that hot? You keep saying that but I haven't seen any reference to an official (or otherwise) explanation saying that.

[ArMaP]

AH!  So people had their cameras ready before the planes hit so they could record the event? Can you point me to one of these videos that isn't one of the faked media ones?

I noticed now that I didn't write the sentence to which you are responding as I thought I did, what I meant was that t I remember seeing several videos showing people that witnessed the event.

They say Aliens exist too  but it would help convince me if you could produce ONE

I am also waiting for that, but I don't say they do not exist just because I don't have any proof that they exist.

No I am saying no one watched the events until the explosion happened

The explosion of the first plane? What about the second? Weren't there many people watching then?

Are you telling me people were expecting something and just sat there waiting?

No.

You will say "ZOMG!! WTF happened? and some one will say  "An airplane just hit the building"  and from then on you will remember seeing an airplane   Add to that the media fakery and a week after the event the mind set becomes an actual memory

I remember some years ago most people didn't remember what year it happened.

I was in a car driving to a job site when it happened  One of the early reports that came out said the Shanksville plane was SHOT DOWN... Rumsfeld is caught on video saying it was SHOT DOWN...

I don't know, I was never too interested in this case to investigate, the first thing I noticed was that it looked like there was too much interests against each other, so it's likely that a large percentage of what we can find has been made to look like that to make people reach the conclusion they (whoever "they" may be) want.

Look if your happy believing some Islamic terrorists with basic flying skills pulled this off and where found to still be alive later... then be my guest. It won't change anything anyway.

I never said that, did I?

That's why I don't like when people put everything together as if it was just one indivisible event. What I said was that I think that it was likely that the towers fell because of being hit by the planes and the because of the fires, regardless of who was flying the planes.

[zorgon]

I am also waiting for that, but I don't say they do not exist just because I don't have any proof that they exist.

The question is not whether they exist or not... but are they visiting Earth by the hundreds (according to UFO reports and abduction stories ) and managing all these years never getting caught once.. despite now everyone having cameras

All we get is blurs and hoaxes not ONE shred of hard core proof...  These aliens crash ships here but are so efficient at hiding we never see one...  and the government can't manage a budget yet they can keep the Aliens 100% secret

The explosion of the first plane? What about the second? Weren't there many people watching then?

I don't know... how many were watching?  How many were running around like Chicken Little in shock?  Find me one reliable witness first  then we can talk about how many there were

I remember some years ago most people didn't remember what year it happened.

Precisely  memories of events are easily manipulated. A new investigation is far too late  They got rid of any evidence by now, like they dumped the ashes into the ocean real quick.

What about all the gold that was missing?  Odd how they moved that out before.

What I said was that I think that it was likely that the towers fell because of being hit by the planes and the because of the fires, regardless of who was flying the planes.

yes that is the official story  that the structural damage was enough with the fires... never mind that it makes no sense  especially in the one where the plane hit at an agle not toughing the core

NO BUILDING in history has ever collapsed from fire. NO BUILDING since has collapsed from fire  The Empire state building was hit by a bomber  It did not fall  NO PLANE hit WTC7

Yes you do need to look at the whole picture  You have two planes and three buildings fell The fire in WTC7 was only on two floors







So you want to tell me how THIS fire collapsed a building? I am all ears 

[Pimander]

That's how I work when I'm going in depth on a study.

PPS: the above explains why I like to split my answers in specific points, while most people like to bunch everything together.

I prefer it when we do that on forums as it allows us to be clear what we are responding to.

[Pimander]

The question is not whether they exist or not... but are they visiting Earth by the hundreds (according to UFO reports and abduction stories ) and managing all these years never getting caught once.. despite now everyone having cameras

Off topic but.....  That is why I think it is likely that the abduction phenomenon is not physical abduction by flesh and blood aliens.  There would be physical evidence every time and I have seen none.

[ArMaP]

I don't know... how many were watching?  How many were running around like Chicken Little in shock?  Find me one reliable witness first  then we can talk about how many there were

Do you think that nobody was looking at the towers after the first hit?

Finding those people may be difficult.

NO BUILDING in history has ever collapsed from fire. NO BUILDING since has collapsed from fire

Why do you ignore the being hit by a 82,380 kg airplane at more than 400 mph and talk only about the fire?

The Empire state building was hit by a bomber  It did not fall

That plane was much smaller and didn't reach the same speeds.

NO PLANE hit WTC7

That's why I'm not talking about it.

Yes you do need to look at the whole picture

No, I don't, it's easier to divide a problem in smaller problems and solve them one by one, if you do not you get to solutions like "aliens did it", basically finding a "deus ex machina" to solve the problem.

You have two planes and three buildings fell The fire in WTC7 was only on two floors

Each building is a case, I'm not looking at the WTC7 case.

So you want to tell me how THIS fire collapsed a building? I am all ears 

Apparently not, you keep on ignoring the energy of the planes hitting the buildings. 

[zorgon]

Do you think that nobody was looking at the towers after the first hit?

Probably very few  or there would be a lot of cell phone videos of that second plane

Finding those people may be difficult.

Why> Didn't someone take their statements and names for an investigation?

Why do you ignore the being hit by a 82,380 kg airplane at more than 400 mph and talk only about the fire?

Ummm building 7 was NOT HIT BY ANY AIRPLANE  It was only fire... There were only 2 supposed "82,380 kg airplane at more than 400 mph"  Why do you keep ignoring that point?

And for the big towers even a hit by a 82,380 kg airplane at more than 400 mph would not explain the building turning to dust and falling perfectly like a demolition job. In fact since the plane hit it on one side , the top would have fallen sideways... like cutting a tree on only one side

You cannot keep ignoring the laws of physics to meet you requirements

No, I don't, it's easier to divide a problem in smaller problems and solve them one by one,

Okay so solve the ONE problem then  WHY did building 7 fall with only two small fires on two floors?

Each building is a case, I'm not looking at the WTC7 case.

That is a typical skeptic ploy... ignore the one that doesn't fit the official story

Apparently not, you keep on ignoring the energy of the planes hitting the buildings. 

What planes? Holograms have no mass therefor they have no energy

[zorgon]

I prefer it when we do that on forums as it allows us to be clear what we are responding to.

Does it?  To me it seems it makes it easier to avid tricky questions

As ArMaP said  "Each building is a case, I'm not looking at the WTC7 case."



Besides.. Connecting the puzzle pieces to see the whole picture is what got Pegasus (and me)  all the attention

[Pimander]

Does it?  To me it seems it makes it easier to avid tricky questions

It also makes it easy to spot which parts of your post ArMaP does not want to discuss. 

Besides.. Connecting the puzzle pieces to see the whole picture is what got Pegasus (and me)  all the attention

I'm not saying don't join the dots.  But making sure the dots are dots before you join them is part of the process for me.


I agree that building 7 is the most obvious hole in the official story.  It should still be there and it isn't.

The way the buildings collapsed like a controlled demolition is also obvious to me.  The centre of the twin towers had a steel core and is the line of most resistance to collapse, unless the core has been melted by temperatures similar to a thermite reaction.

[Sgt.Rocknroll]

http://www.purdue.edu/uns/x/2007a/070612HoffmannWTC.html

[Pimander]

So how does that explain the controlled demolition style collapse?

Witnesses who saw the second plane do not think it was a commercial airliner!

[ArMaP]

Probably very few  or there would be a lot of cell phone videos of that second plane

How many phones with a video camera existed in 2001?

Why> Didn't someone take their statements and names for an investigation?

I don't know, the only thing I know is that I didn't take their statements and names.

Ummm building 7 was NOT HIT BY ANY AIRPLANE  It was only fire... There were only 2 supposed "82,380 kg airplane at more than 400 mph"  Why do you keep ignoring that point?

This is why I haven't followed this case more closely, it's like talking to a wall. 

I was not talking about building 7, I was talking about the plausibility of the two towers collapsing as a result of being hit by the planes and of the fire.

And for the big towers even a hit by a 82,380 kg airplane at more than 400 mph would not explain the building turning to dust and falling perfectly like a demolition job. In fact since the plane hit it on one side , the top would have fallen sideways... like cutting a tree on only one side

The way I see it (that may be completely wrong, but it's the way I see it, I'm not parroting someone else's opinion), the hits, although not strong enough to destroy the towers, were strong enough to weaken the structure, that was further weakened by the fire(s) that followed it. The weakened structure lasted as long as it had enough resistance to support the weight above the area that was weakened, when the resistance was lower than the weight above it it collapsed.

Was the energy of the hits and fires enough for that? I don't know.

You cannot keep ignoring the laws of physics to meet you requirements

What laws of physics am I ignoring? Stop the innuendos and be specific, please.

Okay so solve the ONE problem then  WHY did building 7 fall with only two small fires on two floors?

Because it was heavier than air.

Seriously, I don't know, the official explanation that it was more affected by the fallen debris from the towers than initially supposed doesn't convince me.

That is a typical skeptic ploy... ignore the one that doesn't fit the official story

No, it was what I was talking about, look above.

What planes? Holograms have no mass therefor they have no energy

True, but holograms don't work like that, something that the proponents of the hologram theory like to ignore. Most don't even know what's a hologram.

[ArMaP]

Does it?  To me it seems it makes it easier to avid tricky questions

No, it's a common problem-solving technique. Also, it helps to explain hoaxes like the ones created by Sorcha Faal, when they join two or three true stories and create a fake one, so those that look at the whole picture are easily fooled, while those that look at each component find where the story fails.

Besides.. Connecting the puzzle pieces to see the whole picture is what got Pegasus (and me)  all the attention

That's why I start by identifying the different pieces and look at each one on their own merits first.

[zorgon]

How many phones with a video camera existed in 2001?

Probably none   Which was convenient for the perps

I don't know, the only thing I know is that I didn't take their statements and names.

I wouldn't expect that you had... but surely SOMEONE did? And those should be readily available?  Well they are not Many have tried to find them.

That is why this is a conspiracy that will not die... you cannot find the evidence

This is why I haven't followed this case more closely, it's like talking to a wall. 

Well only because you wear blinders that have tunnel vision

I was not talking about building 7,

I KNOW  but you cannot ignore building 7 in the over all plot  If even just that one building was brought down by nefarious means it means the whole official story is bullocks

I was talking about the plausibility of the two towers collapsing as a result of being hit by the planes and of the fire.

Well I say it is NOT plausible  so do many engineeers. Jet fuel is not hot enough to make steel beams soft in 7.6 seconds (the duration of the fireball as ALL the jet fuel explodes.

I say it is NOT plausible that the subsequent office fires were hot enough to soften steel core beams and I offered proof in the form of Edna Crinton who can stand in that opening MINUTES after the  errr 'plane' made that hole and it is obvioulsy no longer hot... unless she is Wonder Woman and immune to heat.  Last time I checked steel takes a lot more heat to get soft than human flesh

The way I see it (that may be completely wrong, but it's the way I see it, I'm not parroting someone else's opinion), the hits, although not strong enough to destroy the towers, were strong enough to weaken the structure, that was further weakened by the fire(s) that followed it. The weakened structure lasted as long as it had enough resistance to support the weight above the area that was weakened, when the resistance was lower than the weight above it it collapsed.

Why don't you take a piece of rebar and put it in a gasoline and wood fire and see how long it takes to get 'soft'  Then extrapolate that to the time the fire burned enough to soften huge core beams Having used a forge to make swords  I know how long it takes YOU need to do the test... otherwise your opinion is based on assumptions, not facts

Was the energy of the hits and fires enough for that? I don't know.

No it wasn't Now you know  And if you were really wanting to be sure, you would try to heat up a steel beam (without a blower forge or acetylene torch )

What laws of physics am I ignoring?

Temperature and length of time jet fuel burned
Tensile strength of steel beams
Melting point of large steel beams
The fact that the steel beams vaporized instead of falling in a tangled mess of metal (like in any other building collapse EVER


Because it was heavier than air.

Seriously, I don't know, the official explanation that it was more affected by the fallen debris from the towers than initially supposed doesn't convince me.

Well you can see VISUALLY in the photos minutes befoer the collapse of #7 that theere is no damage save a few window out and two relatively small fires (one conveniently in the office that held the ENRON records )

You don't believe your eyes?

LOL Oh well no point continuing this... it's been 14 years... We will never get the truth in our lifetime  and politicians are erasing their hard drives these days so they don't get caught like Tricky Dicky did

True, but holograms don't work like that, something that the proponents of the hologram theory like to ignore. Most don't even know what's a hologram.

Personally I don't think there was a hologram... Looking in detail at the news footage it is obvious that the film was doctored... especially the one that shows the nose of the plane coming out the other side... Really?  How did that plane smash trough the steel beams intact with an aluminum nose?   I can do better Fairy Tales

The Official story is like a religion You need to ignore reality to believe in that deity