Teh Stupid
Paul Joseph Watson, in a piece titled: "Fringe Theories Harming 9/11 Truth Movement".
Where exactly was it that the fuselage popped out of the opposite face of the tower shown here?
There is no hole larger than the 2 foot gap between columns.
This is the killer evidence against video fakery?
Please.
Worst argument against video fakery ever-- and it shows that Mr. Watson knows nothing about which he speaks. (The rest of the article is just as ill-informed and is clearly heavily biased against "no-planers".)
There is one video that soundly debunks the blue screen theories and should be used to put this deception to bed for good. Japanese news footage of Flight 175 striking the south tower shows the fuselage of the aircraft briefly exiting the opposite face of the building before the entire plane is engulfed in flames from the exploding jet fuel (located well behind the nosecone).
Where exactly was it that the fuselage popped out of the opposite face of the tower shown here?
There is no hole larger than the 2 foot gap between columns.
This is the killer evidence against video fakery?
Please.
Worst argument against video fakery ever-- and it shows that Mr. Watson knows nothing about which he speaks. (The rest of the article is just as ill-informed and is clearly heavily biased against "no-planers".)
posted by spooked at 10:54 PM
4 Comments:
elementary, my dear watson...
i read this piece yesterday and picked up on the same quote you posted. i am surprised watson claims it's a nosecone-- seems more likely if it's anything, it's an engine. but then again, i don't believe it's an engine either.
this quote from paul's article also bothered me...
The evidence they present to validate this notion is the contention that Flight 175 should have "bounced off" the tower yet sliced through it like a knife through butter.
it's always one extreme or the other-- either the plane bounces off or the place slices thru??!
i don't think too many people believe the plane should have bounced off, but why don't we see the building have any effect on the plane? no tail section falls off, no wings fall off, no fuselage crumpling, no impact force seems to be distributed back towards the plane. why? why don't we see big mess of plane wreckage in the hole? oh, thats right... because the only metric of concern to mr. watson is what? velocity!
The vast majority of the evidence is supported not by scientific analysis of what one would expect to happen when a large commercial airliner impacts a skyscraper at over 500 miles per hour.
mr. watson conviently forgets density
glad to see the comments back! thanks spooked!
i believe that a real aluminum 767 @500mph would be squashed against the side of wtc2 like a beer can under your foot - at least from the nose to the engines - maybe the engines could crack whichever columns they hit against but maybe not since their impact would be cushioned by the front of the beer can 767 which would have been built up into a wad -
maybe a real 767 could put a dent in the side of wtc2 like a shopping cart into your car and maybe even crack and break a few columns but to leave a cartoon-like plane-shaped hole behind only after seeing the plane disappear entirely including the wingtips is ridiculous.
have you guys watched the documentary available through the MaeBrussell.com website? He also believes in the no plane . He surfed through all the news reports on 9-11 and has some amazing footage that further backs the claim of no planes. One guy, walking by, with ash all over him, emphatically says "there was no plane, it was a bomb." He repeats it twice. I would try to get this video. The guy's name is Tim Canale. YOu can contact him through maebrussell.com.
this Mae Brussell is a woman and passed away in 1988. is that who you're referring to? anonymous, can you provide a link to the video?
here's an interesting podcast i came across with some Mae Brussell material:
http://911synchronicity.com/audio/07-26-06_911_Synchronicity_Participants_Edition__JFK_and_Mae_Brussell_96_kbps.mp3
Post a Comment
<< Home