Firstly, to the pompous,fool lambasting Alex Jones, and commenting upon Galileo as only being imprisoned for a short period he was,in fact, held under house arrest for the last nine years of his life. That is almost prison.
Colin, what about the other part of that quote? Do you want to correct us on the "flat earth" theory that Jones put forth?
Do that major screw up make Jones an "ignoramous"?Comment Posted By TomB On 23.08.2007 @ 10:06
Well, there are pictures of people leaning out of the jagged gash in the side. Thereâ€™s a firefighter saying there are small fires he thinks could be put out with two (water) lines.
Neither of these two points mean there weren't hot fires burning where these people weren't, but I'd like a link to those please.
Ah, legitimate links, not truther sites.Comment Posted By TomB On 23.08.2007 @ 06:32
Do honestly believe that the defense headquarters of the greatest superpower in the world only had one camera capture a plane crashing into it? Honestly?
Yes, why in the world would they have video cameras pointing at a wall?
Moreover, they had no real time/normal frame rate cameras anywhere to record anything? Your local retailers have real time cameras.
I'm sure they have video cameras all throughout the Pentagon, pointing at, you know, actual THINGS. Not just blank walls.
I keep watching the video, and in the first frame the object looks nothing like a 757.
I doesn't to me either. But then again, it was moving at over 500 mile per hour and that camera wasn't made to capture something moving that fast.
Let's move back for a moment, you initally wrote this:
â€œInstead of arguing back and forth, letâ€™s answer this simple question. Why canâ€™t I see a plane in the video and why wonâ€™t they release a video showing one?â€
I gave a very simple, straightforward answer to that question. Yet you completely ignore it and move on to why they didn't have more cameras pointing at a blank wall, and why the hole isn't bigger.
You competely ignore the original question and instead start "arguing back and forth" by asking questions that have been answered over and over again.
Which is it?
As an aside, I have a good friend who was working in the area at the time and watched the plane hit the building. If you would like I could ask him if he would mind getting in touch with you and telling you EXACTLY what he saw.Comment Posted By TomB On 22.08.2007 @ 18:27
Where'd you go?Comment Posted By TomB On 22.08.2007 @ 17:46
The fires that remained were pretty small and localized, and couldnâ€™t have heated very much steel.
Hans, where did you get this information?Comment Posted By TomB On 22.08.2007 @ 15:53
"Instead of arguing back and forth, letâ€™s answer this simple question. Why canâ€™t I see a plane in the video and why wonâ€™t they release a video showing one?"
Simple. The frame rate of the security camera was around one frame per second, and the plane was moving at over 700 feet per second. So the camera would have had to have taken a frame at the exact moment the plane was in front of it to get a useable shot, but it unfortunatly didn't.
They aren't releasing a video showing one because one doesn't exist. The only reason we have so many of the second WTC is because so many cameras were already shooting the other tower.Comment Posted By TomB On 22.08.2007 @ 14:46
JackD: "How can the govâ€™t be innocent in 9/11 when we have caught it lying so many times (WACO, Ruby Ridge, no WMDs, USS Liberty, Operation Northwoods, Gulf of Tonkin, Pearl Harbor, ETC.)?"
I'm glad you brought this up because it speaks to a larger issue.
If Bush and Co. was smart and devious enough to plan, execute and cover-up 9-11, how is it that they were so utterly stupid as to forget to plant WMDs in Iraq in order to justify the invasion?Comment Posted By TomB On 22.08.2007 @ 11:39