Seven Questions about 9/11

[Kyle Burnett]

Well, the 18" width of the windows came from here, but I can't recall at the moment where the three meter intervals was derived. If the sides were 63 m, then if there were 21 separations including windows, at 3 m apiece, that would yield the result.

If the separations were 3 m apart, that would yield separations at 3 meters apart? Nice circular logic there, glad to see you managed to correct yourself on that in your more recent post.

If you really want to dispute the figures I have given, then cite another source with different ones.

I figured he picture of the office space I posted shows the windows well enough to refute your flagrantly wrong and completely unsourced 3 meters claim.

The Purdue study was a sham and I know of no serious student of 9/11 who thinks otherwise.

I've yet to see anyone with notable credentials in physics take issue with the plane impacts, can you name any?

(Clearly, you are not a serious student of 9/11.)

Coming from the guy who claimed the windows were 3 meters apart and who cited a blog entry poking fun at the argument he was making, I take that a complement.

If any more proof were required, you have taken a diagram of the official approach to the Pentagon to refute my observation of the approach approximately perpendicular to the building, but I was based in that on the sizing photo study, where you can even see the shadow cast is perpendicular.

No, I referenced the official approach to to refute your sizing problem claim, and you're referencing a shadow that's obviously not from the plane as it's there in the frames before and after it to support your perpendicular flight path crackpottry.

The photo may be faked, but we know the diagram cannot possibly be right.

Who's this we here, you got a mouse in your pocket?

And your reliance upon animations speaks volumes about your research capabilities.

I'm not relying on them, just referencing them. That said, what does the fact that the bulk of ST9/11 left to form STJ9/11 say about your research capabilities?

By the way, I overlooked your post when I read this thread days ago because I scrolled past what you said in it and mistook you're quoting of my post as my last post in the thread and read from there. There's a rule this forum that in place to prevent such issues:

Further, when responding to a lengthy post, you will not re-post the original in its entirety. This practice results in the waste of valuable and finite bandwidth. Quote only those passages to which you are directly responding.

Is there any chance you could bring yourself to start respecting that rule?