A Helicopter Was Buffeted by a Shockwave as the South Tower Went Down
For some reason, this footage, which shows the helicopter being strongly buffeted by a shockwave as the tower went down, was edited out of the above footage:
Question of the day-- what is more likely to cause this shockwave seen above that went hundreds of feet through the air before it hit the helicopter:
a) a gravity-driven collapse?
b) demolition of the tower by conventional explosives?
c) demolition of the tower by super-thermite?
d) demolition of the tower by directed energy weapons?
e) demolition of the tower by mini-nukes?
posted by spooked at 4:03 PM
12 Comments:
Why do they switch camera angles there? We're looking out the window, and suddenly we're looking inside the helicopter. Looks like they had more than one camera going, or maybe I'm not understanding the footage properly.
Fred
A, of course.
---
a gravity driven collapse?
ya right!
Why wouldn't it be A? There's no evidence of anything else. Certainly not explosives. A plane hits the building. Structural damage results. Fire begins from jet fuel. Fire is fed by the detritus of office and building things. Fire weakens steel structural supporting members. Weight of building above the crash level causes failure of lower support steel, resulting in a collapse. Lower floors are designed to support static loads, not thousands of tons dropping 10 feet. Result, collapse of building.
Isaac Newton had gravity right.
When you come up with hard evidence of anything else, not conjecture, not guesses, not whispy breathless interpretations from blurry videos or photographs posted with BOLD font, I'll take you more seriously.
In the meantime, the "evidence" you posted on democraticunderground of wire boxes and kerosene fire only weakens your cause because it is so silly.
""There's no evidence of anything else. Certainly not explosives.""
firemen witness explosions
""A plane hits the building.""
which plane? the one with no wing?
or the phony CNN plane?
""Fire is fed by the detritus of office and building things""
oh a dry-wall fire? a carpet fire?
right.
"" Fire weakens steel structural supporting members.""
right. ask this woman how hot it was.
""thousands of tons dropping 10 feet. Result, collapse of building.
""
unfortunately for the official 9/11 fairytale and it's no-nothing apologists such as yourself the towers didn't collapse from thousands of tons dropping 10 feet, they were entirely turned into powder in only 10 seconds each. poof!
""I'll take you more seriously.""
don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.
tactical nukes...NUKES NUKES NUKES...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu4rkz5f5K8
It wouldn't be A)gravity driven collapse because the towers didn't collapse. And if they actually had collapsed, the act of 1 floor falling onto another and causing those floors to fall on yet another and so on and so on would have taken much longer than the 10 seconds that was recorded on film.
You can't even say it that fast.
Try to say "fall - slam" 110 times in 10 seconds.
There's no evidence of anything else.
Bzzzt!
Wrong!
Try again.
""There's no evidence of anything else""
actually there's ONLY evidence of anything else.
there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support NIST/911 commission.
anon@4:43AM said:
""Fire begins from jet fuel. Fire is fed by the detritus of office and building things. Fire weakens steel structural supporting members.""
"Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines."
help! it's hot enough to weaken the steel structural supporting members in here!
wow real hot!
"thousands of tons dropping 10 feet"
There is no evidence of this happening, nor is there any reasonable explanation for how these ten feet instantaneously disappeared to allow a symmetrical free fall for ten feet, which is what Bazant and Zhou have assumed, not proven.
Even if there was such a free fall, explain how the much more massive
floors below offered no resistance. Saying that the floors below were not designed to handle the load does not explain how they offered no resistance.
oh anon @ 4:43 will explain nothing - because in reality he knows nothing about 9/11. (go team hannity/colmes!)
unlike bazant/zhou who are supposed to be smart enough to tell the truth yet somehow fall very short of the mark.
Post a Comment
<< Home