Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
MSD, that picture was taken after the collapse. The collapse completly destroyed any trace of where the right engine would have struck the building. On he lft, there is no damage from where the engine would have impacted.
|
I see damage Right at the ground floor on the right side at the edge of the collapsed section. I also see some damage to the left of the collapse around the ground floor. It's a low-res image, so it might be crappy compression, but it sure looks like impact marks to me.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fastom
A plane with a bomb that exploded after impact makes the most sense. Fits with the witnesses "thermite" description and the ones that saw a plane.
With such a gigantic planned deception like that one it isn't unreasonable to suggest a small plane carrying damaged 757 parts to plant evidence.
Whatever the case the official version is the fantasy.
Here's another bit to argue...
http://www.mycountryrightorwrong.net/F-15.htm
... ever notice the flash of fire before the plane hits the WTC, or the black streak in the sky. If you'd taped the TV coverage watch it again for both of those. |
There is not flash of fire. What you are seeing is the forward-looking radar from the planes' nosecones reflecting off the building and being picked up by the CCD in the camera. Point a TV remote at your camcorder or digital camera and you'll see the same effect. Point it at a wall from a short distance and you'll see the same effect.
I don't see an F-15 in that grainy, blurry video. It doesn't lend any credibility to your side that claims are made that the Pentagon video clearly shows that no plane hit, yet a shaky, grainy, blurry video from farther back is given as conclusive proof of the presence of something that wasn't there.