Amsterdam Coffeeshop Directory Forums

Fire & gas can make loud noises.

Stanky Danky wrote:Is this proof enough?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9X_8flGeM

WTF do you think?. Edit: actually that's a rhetorical question incase ya come back with an answer....NO, it fucking isn't.

Boner, you been lightin farts again?.

DC wrote:

Stanky Danky wrote:Is this proof enough?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9X_8flGeM

WTF do you think?. Edit: actually that's a rhetorical question incase ya come back with an answer....NO, it fucking isn't.

Boner, you been lightin farts again?.

Video and audio recordings of explosions isn't proof enough that secondary explosions happened that day? I think you might need to grab a Q-tip and wash the sleep out your eye.

DC wrote:

Stanky Danky wrote:Is this proof enough?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9X_8flGeM

WTF do you think?. Edit: actually that's a rhetorical question incase ya come back with an answer....NO, it fucking isn't.

Boner, you been lightin farts again?.

pmsl!!!!

OT: DC u workin 28th-30th? is my bro's bday!!!! will pop in!

See ya then mate.

Skankazoid, apart from the obvious stuff like planes crashing into 100 floor buildings, which is bound to create a little bit of a disturbance to the buildings around. What are the bangs, what time are they happening, where are they coming from and what are they blowing up?. Is that enough to keep ya goin for awhile?. It should be.

I have included a web site ... with Photos
to help DC understand what he's reading



You have to go to the site to see the other vids

http://911review.org/Wiki/TwinTowers.shtml

Watch the Sept 11 Videos carefully:

In one video, you can see the charges going off, and in another, the demolition squibs shooting out. The explosions are progressive, synchronized, and bring the buildings down in almost the free fall time.
The Twin Towers exploded outwards as far as 70 m.

The tremendous force exploded the walls and entire structure out horizontally.
The buildings came down in about the same time as a free fall - there was no friction of a collapse.
The buildings were exploded into fine dust, not collapsed pieces. "Where does the energy come from to turn all this reinforced concrete into dust?" asks Jeff King.
Jet fuel can't melt steel:

No fire in history has lead to the collapse of a steel office building, even after hours of raging fires; when the Twin Towers exploded, the fires had almost gone out.
The temperatures measured of the core of the rubble, five days later, exceed the maximum temperature for a kerosene fire.
The maximum temperature for a kerosene fire is insufficient to melt steel; to use jet fuel to melt steel would be an amazing discovery:
Muslims Suspend Physics
The buildings came down in the free-fall time:

Both demolitions took place in about 15 seconds, which is about the time it would take for a free-fall from that height. The buildings were demolished in a prefectly synchronized wave.
The demolition of the Twin Towers was not a conventional Controlled Demolition like the Building 7 Collapse. A more exotic process must have been used to get the buildings to explode outwards, as far as 70 m. See September 11 Physics.
The planes are not the commercial flights the propaganda claims:

size and shape of the impact hole does not correspond to a Boeing 767.
The plane that strikes the second tower has a 20 m. long, 1/2 m. cylinder underneath:
see Wtc 2 Plane Pod.
See our pages: Guardian (WTC Demolition Links), September 11 Physics and Muslims Suspend Physics.

Audio:

discussion_in_firehouse.mpg
update Feb 2006
9/11 Physics Dr. Steven Jones Blows the Roof off a Utah Auditorium
Physics Professor Steven Jones Packs Lecture Hall and Overflow Rooms
Huge Crowd Hears of 9/11 Big Lie, WTC Controlled Demolition
Dr. Jones argues that the physics behind the governments
explanation of the collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11 do not make sense,
and that a better (and perhaps only) explanation for their collapse was that they were demolished,
exactly the way structural engineers bring down large buildings,
by pre-positioned explosive devices set off in precise sequences.

Links:

The World Trade Center Demolition and the So-Called War on Terrorism
Proof The Twin Towers Were Deliberately Demolished
The World Trade Center Collapse
Painful Questions
World Trade Center Demolition ( Local Copy)
Evidence of Explosives In The South Tower Collapse (Local Copy)
Controlled demolition at WTC
AttackOnAmerica.net - Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC
How 'Did' those WTC Buildings Collapse?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
911review.org - homepage

Recomended :
The WTC Report. World Trade Center Demolition chapter 2

WTC 9-11 theories, plane photos, and video analysis (main batcave page)

Who would put explosives in WTC? And why?

9/11 Video stills south tower flight 175

Message Concerning Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers

'Flight 11' Revisited

Rare unseen 9/11 photos Twin Tower photos

Scholars for Truth about 9/11

WTC Plane Engine - 9-11 Review

Jeff King - WTC collapse video controlled demolition 9/11

A Collection of 9/11 truth videos

Steven E. Jones, Ph.D.
World Trade Center Demolition. - collapse theory 9/11 review

Proof of the Demolition of WTC 1, 2, 6, 7 by Internal Explosives

www.81x.com/911wtc/Fema

Stanky Danky wrote:

Sir Niall of Essex-sire wrote:In short, eye witness testimony of this event is very fucking short of 'pretty solid.'

Every single person who was at ground zero that day said they heard secondary explosions. What more fucking proof do you need? I challenge you to find one single video or testimony of someone who was on the ground that day who said they didn't hear explosions.

Evidence; right Stanky, this is exactly what happened last time. You ignore all my points and demmand evidence while providing FUCK ALL evidence for the claim that every single person heard explosions.

But, more importantly, i've already said why the eye witness reports may be ( and in most opinion probably aren't) reliable enough to use as evidence. You've ignored this again.

Any chance you're going to answer my points, or just ignore them and demmand for evidence while providing none for yourself.

Otherwise known as the Stanky way of proving a point.

Stanky Danky wrote:

DC wrote:

Stanky Danky wrote:Is this proof enough?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9X_8flGeM

WTF do you think?. Edit: actually that's a rhetorical question incase ya come back with an answer....NO, it fucking isn't.

Boner, you been lightin farts again?.

Video and audio recordings of explosions isn't proof enough that secondary explosions happened that day? I think you might need to grab a Q-tip and wash the sleep out your eye.

No, for fuck sake no, it's an INTERPRETATION of recorded evidence. It's a recording of the outside of the buliding, that does not show conclusive evidence of an explosion, it could be a video of a secondary effect of the plan crash which are interpretated as being an explosion.

Maybe if you didn't make twenty points in your stupid posts I might address each point. The point I'm trying to make is quite simple. One eye witness not solid, hundreds of eye witnesses solid. Now keep trying to over complicate the issue like you always do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3AwEz0K ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eI8u-I0G ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9ufJXLF ... re=related

UFO and Smoke faces
hey I have a sence of humor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOZCdZ6i ... re=related

Stanky Danky wrote:Maybe if you didn't make twenty points in your stupid posts I might address each point. The point I'm trying to make is quite simple. One eye witness not solid, hundreds of eye witnesses solid. Now keep trying to over complicate the issue like you always do.

Yea, because making points makes you stupid, ignoring them all together makes you smart?

Right, so where is the 100's of peoples eye witness results, also if you could actually read points previously made it may help me repeating myself. As posted on the last fucking page;

I think i may have to put this simply, your logic used is fucking retarded because of (see below)

Simply put, one eye witness = possible bullshit, 100 eye witness = pretty solid. However, 1000's of people who do not believe the consipircy theory = bullshit. So really, it's only a majority of people that believe the alternative version which is true, no matter how many people believe the offical version of events they must be false. However a similar number of people believing the alternative explanation means it's true.

Also, address these problems with your eye witness testimony, how do you account for these variables;

In addition, you tend to ignore any other possible factors; which because you haven't mentioned when those statements were taken after the events happened; affecting the abilty of recall ( this is outlined in the journal ) also you don't say how close the eye-witness's were possibly obscuring views, fail to mention the level of stress, shock etc. involved and the affect this has on perception, how much the eye witness's were exposed to alternative versions of events and how this affects perception.

Dude, I'm not getting into it with you tonight. You get worked up way to easily and start making lengthy post after lengthy post. I'm far from in the mood to read all that BS, so lets just agree to disagree, alright.

Stanky Danky wrote:Dude, I'm not getting into it with you tonight. You get worked up way to easily and start making lengthy post after lengthy post. I'm far from in the mood to read all that BS, so lets just agree to disagree, alright.

Cop out.

But alright.

http://911review.com/errors/phantom/st_plane.html


'A Pod Was Attached to the South Tower Plane'
There is no credible evidence that what crashed into the South Tower on 9/11/01 was anything other than Flight 175. The jet was seen by hundreds of people and recorded by scores of cameras as it flew over the Hudson River, approaching the World Trade Center from the southwest, and careened into the South Tower, erupting into a spectacular fireball. But ideas that something entirely different occurred have been a staple of some 9/11 skeptics since at least the middle of 2003, and have been promoted to much greater visibility in 2004. These ideas are so numerous and shifting that a full accounting of them would be next to impossible. We examine only the more prominent and recurrent ideas here.

Two of the more polished campaigns to promote the above ideas in 2004 are the letsroll911.org website and the In Plane Site video. Both promote a very similar set of assertions about the South Tower plane.

The Pod Menagerie
Of the many ideas based on seeming peculiarities in the photographic evidence of the South Tower crash, the idea that the plane had a bulge and/or attachments to its fuselage and/or wings foreign to a 767 airliner has enjoyed the greatest publicity and popularity. We name this page for this idea, that some kind of pod or pods were attached to the plane.

The Pregnant Plane
The pregnant plane idea holds that belly the South Tower plane had a peculiar bulge, and therefore was not Flight 175. The originators of this idea apparently relied on their audience being so gullible that they would not bother to look at the underside of modern commercial jetliner, since the entire idea ignores a feature common to all large modern jetliners: the wing fairings that surround the structure that unifies the wings and fuselage and houses the landing gear. This idea was apparently seeded with The mysterious reflections of 9/11, an article published in Spanish in LA VANGUARDIA on June 6, 2003. Here the authors suggest both the pregnant plane and the later-popularized cylinder-mounted plane ideas:

They consist of two long shapes located underneath the fuselage, one towards the bow and the other towards the stern of the plane. There is a third, seemingly pyramidal in shape, on the underbelly, almost in the center of the plane.
The article claims that "aeronautical engineers at official Spanish" used "contour-detection digital analysis", and then discloses that they relied on an ignorant characterization of the geometry of airliners such as 767s:

given that the fuselage of commercial airplanes is cylindrical and flat, according to the cited technical report.


The Cylinder-Mounted Plane
The cylinder-mounted plane idea is based on an imaginative misinterpretation of a specular reflection of the sun by the shiny dark underside of the South Tower plane's fuselage. This idea is promoted with great specificity in 911review.org, which has precisely characterized the object as:

a 20m. long cylinder about 30 cm. in diameter.

Looking at the underbellies of 767-like jetliners, such as the 777 to the right, in a variety of different lighting conditions, reveals a simple explanation for the broken streak seen in the featured video frame of the South Tower plane: The plane was reflecting the sunlight off its fuselage in a specular reflection interrupted by the shape of the wing fairings.

We use the pod-plane moniker as a designation for both the pregnant plane and cylinder-mounted plane ideas, as well as similar ones, all of which are frequently associated with the missile-firing idea.

The Missile-Firing Plane
The idea that the plane (or hologram!) that flew into the South Tower fired a missile just before impact is a common element of all of the "pod-plane" ideas. The pod, be it a bulge or cylinder, is the supposed source of the supposed missile, fired just before impact.

A bright spot that appears on various images seemingly at the point of impact is cited as evidence of the missile strike. However, there are other explanations for the bright spots, such as specular reflections of pieces of the fracturing plane, or electrostatic effects of the collision.

The Hologram and/or Video Plane
The hologram plane idea holds that the approach of the aircraft was faked through the use of an aerial hologram. The video plane idea holds that there was no plane but that images of a plane were edited into the videos that allegedly captured the event, and then broadcast on 9/11/01. The video and hologram ideas can be used together -- when pressed on the far-fetched idea of a hologram that can be projected in the air and seen in broad daylight from many different perspectives, the theorist can shift to a position of "pure video", and the insistence that no one actually saw the approach of a plane preceding the South Tower fireball.



The Windowless Plane
The windowless plane idea holds that, since the plane's windows aren't visible in the grainy silhouettes of the plane in the videos, it must not have windows, and therefore must be a cargo or tanker version of a 767.

This idea arises, as do nearly all the ideas here, from a failure to appreciate the fact that details disappear as resolution decreases. The windows on the taxiing UU 767 to the right are barely visible even at several times the resolution of the South Tower videos.

Reviews
Apparently, the first document to debunk the various pod-plane and related ideas was that of Mark Hungerford, in 911wideopen.com.

Later, on September 9, 2004, Eric Salter published an article that illustrates exactly how the lighting and shapes of the aircraft can account for all of the imagined appearances of the alleged pods and missiles.

e x c e r p t
title: Analysis of Flight 175 'Pod' and related claims
authors: Eric Salter, with contributions by Brian Salter

...

The 767 wing fairing vs. the "pod"
The fuselage bulges out where the wings join it. This is called the wing fairing. The landing gear assembly folds into this area when it is retracted, which is seems to be a problem if the alleged pod is a missile launcher:
As is clear in comparing the photos above, under the right lighting conditions the wing fairing can look more pronounced. Notice how the reflected sunlight (specular highlight) on the right side of the plane in the center photograph changes from the fuselage to the fairing. This will be important later.

...

Conclusion
As it stands, the presence of a pod cannot be absolutely proven or disproven given the low quality of the visual record. The only evidence presented so far for it's existence is that in several low quality images it looks like there is a pod there. The pod advocates, who overwhelmingly bear the burden of proof, have not systematically proven that it could not have been an optical illusion. There is more than sufficient reason to conclude that the alleged pod is most likely the result of the play of light on the body of the 767 around its normal wing fairing, especially because this hypothesis holds up the best with the better quality images: the CNN footage, the Taylor photo and the new black and white photo of the underside of flight 175. So the question is, even if one still graciously allows for the remote theoretical possibility of a "pod" given the limitations of the visual record, should this be something that the 9/11 community embraces and presents to the public? Absolutely not, in my opinion, given the evidence we've seen so far. I'm not ideologically opposed to radical arguments like this, but if they're to be promoted they should be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. The pod advocates haven't come anywhere close to that.

...

site: www.questionsquestions.net page: www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/pod.html

page last modified: 2007-02-25


Copyright 2004 - 2010,911Review.com / revision 1.02site last modified: 6/6/2010


Eric Salter demonstrated how specular highlights could account for the shape of the streaks on the South Tower plane.

AND WHERE THE FUCK

is Flight 93

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ypi_J4E7 ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aou6c2M ... re=related


I can tell you a plane fuled to fly accross the country... and only flying 20 to 40 min....

would have almost all its fule.

and upon hitting the ground... would have burnt up the ground, and surrounding area