BBC 10 years of 9/11 conspiracy theories

[p4r4]

Quote:No it wouldn't at all.
Did the Pentagon conspire to put a low-resolution one frame/sec security camera in a security camera position, do you think?

No, they would never do that!

Quote:So what.

It's you who was comparing kerosine with TNT, that's what.
Various explosive explode differently some are faster than others, it' all depends on the exact explosive mix used. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/s...osives.htm
And assuming such a conspiracy, the pentagon could have already been rigged with explosives ...

Quote: Your f4 phantom video does not show it "exploding" on contact.
-----
No, of course not.
It quietly moves radially away from the point of impact without the slightest sound.
Of course none of that would have been seen had it been carrying 24,000 pounds of kerosine as well.

It's you who claimed that the vaporizing aluminum would create a silvery flash, than claimed that the phantom is made of some "special" metals and that's why it did not make a flash. When in fact the F4 phantom is made out of aluminum and has only 8% titanium. kerosine does not make a flash, at it's brightest burn it's yellow.

Quote:Oh, yes they did. In fact flashes are visible in EVERY video that was taken that showed the impact face.

You could, of course, be wondering why a 450 mph 70-ton passenger plane didn't so easily penetrate a reinforced concrete wall backed up by reinforced concrete pillars and floors, than a 560 mph 80-ton passenger plane confronted by hollow steel box beams 5/16" thick and fourteen inches square and lightweight foam concrete floors 4" thick?

The flash on twin towers is not from impact as the shadows proves it.

Quote: The pentagon explosion looks exactly like a HE explosion
-----
Except a hundred times slower.

Where did you pull that number from? Make it 1000 for more dramatic flare.


They been so sloppy that even the only footage released is incriminating: