Missile?? - Page 26

newton3376 · 9th September 2011, 07:41 PM

LOL this has gone on for 26 pages?

You had the answer in your opening post.....

In the words of Gage "Let's take a look"

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

Could a missile have been fired from a plane hitting the south tower?

So far you are starting out poorly...the question itself is moronic and the answer is "no" of course.....but you continue...

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

I don't know the answer to that.

It's "NO". That's pretty much it...next question....

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

But these two videos I have here certainly present some interesting questions.

If you replace "interesting" with "stupid" then, yes, I have to agree.

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

It seems crazy but it just might be true.

Everything before the word "but" in that statement is spot on....it seems crazy because it is crazy....

The "just might be true" is where you leave the road of sanity and take the exit to fanatasy truther land....it's a magical, mystical place where anything is possible.....and the possibilities can even break the known laws of physics and no one will fault you.

I would recommend that you leave la la land and come back to reality....it's not as exciting as the "agent-behind-every-corner-as-you-bravely-fight-to-wake-up-the-sheeple-to-the-global-NWO-conspiracy-of-9/11", but at least it's real.

sheeplesnshills · 9th September 2011, 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

and a static discharge seems all but impossible.

well as we saw from the high def video the flash was after the impact so this question is kind of moot but I'd love to hear your reasoning for why a static discharge is "all but impossible"??????

cyclonic · 9th September 2011, 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

That one time you were clear. There's really nothing to address, the second flash was pre-impact, it's as simple as that.

Why do you keep lying?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Sam.I.Am · 9th September 2011, 09:04 PM

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

well as we saw from the high def video the flash was after the impact so this question is kind of moot but I'd love to hear your reasoning for why a static discharge is "all but impossible"??????

Because then it would destroy his delusions. I hear that when that happens some people simply lose it and end up in a rubber room wearing a nice comfy "I love me" jacket.

AJM8125 · 9th September 2011, 09:28 PM

Originally Posted by Sam.I.Am

Because then it would destroy his delusions. I hear that when that happens some people simply lose it and end up in a rubber room wearing a nice comfy "I love me" jacket.

So that's why he refuses to answer this. It all makes sense now.

Craig4 · 9th September 2011, 10:05 PM

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

That one time you were clear. There's really nothing to address, the second flash was pre-impact, it's as simple as that.

Assuming you weren't lying here, and you are, that does nothing to support the idea it was a missile. You have done nothing to establish that a missile came from the aircraft.

dafydd · 10th September 2011, 01:15 AM

'they are too stupid to realize how stupid they really are'

Very well put. That describes truthers to a tee.

jaydeehess · 13th September 2011, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

As I said explain to me how an almost perfectly circular flash is visible AFTER penetration?

Seems tmd was perhaps saying that the flash occured after the nose impacted the WTC.

Yeah, yeah, I know tmdie you were asking how its possible to have a circular flash after impact has begun. I cannot envision why it would not be possible given that an explosing oxygen bottle will produce a roughly shperical explosion and that would extend beyond to confines of the aircraft.
I also note that the clearest videos all show that the 'flash' occurs after nose impact so your continued insistence in the face of that evidence illustrates a dogmatic appraoch to 911 on your part.

I'll be back later to look through the last few days of posts to see if you actually had anything new to say.

jaydeehess · 13th September 2011, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
Well he also believes that it easy to fool dozens (hundreds) of witnesses to a large plane approaching the Pentagon into not seeing said aircraft rise up and zoom away while some other mechanism causes death and destruction at the Pentagon.

So , yes. I believe that I have said all that I need to say about this missile.
If tmd responds to the other points I made I will probably post again. otherwise this is my last post in this thread.

I never said that. I said a flyover was a theory that was offered. I never gave and probability to it's likelihood. All has been said about the other possibilities, that almost all are impossible, and a static discharge seems all but impossible.

You accuse ME of being confusing??
In that above quote it seems that you have conflated the issue of the CiT Pentagon contentions with the flashes that are the subject of this thread! Indeed until the 'and a static discharge...' one cannot know that you have switched between the two.

As far as the CiT go you have offered their contentions up for consideration in the past I do believe. Any rational person would immediatly recognize their contentions as being utterly ridiculous.
'nuff said about the CiT then. If you wish though, we could dicsuss them in another thread, perhaps an existing one, just point the way.

On the issue of the flashes, please refresh my memory and tell me why an exploding oxygen bottle cannot be the second flash? You might as well also inform me as to why a sunlight illuminated vapour cone around the starboard wing cannot be the first 'flash'.

Then you might get around to explaining why, if none of the offered suggestions are possible in your view, that the contention that they (the 'flashes') are the launch and then impact of a missile, is so much better than the offered suggestions, given that no missile is ever visible at any time.

You might include how it is that your supposed missile could have significant KE, given that it physically cannot have a particularily high velocity (as proved by the math for a missile that has a flight time of at least one second ( flight times greater than that make the missile even slower), whether or not missile impact is prior to or after aircraft nose impact, compared to that of the aircraft.

ETA: If tmd fails to address these points this will be my last post in this thread.

tmd2_1 · 14th September 2011, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

Seems tmd was perhaps saying that the flash occured after the nose impacted the WTC.

Yeah, yeah, I know tmdie you were asking how its possible to have a circular flash after impact has begun. I cannot envision why it would not be possible given that an explosing oxygen bottle will produce a roughly shperical explosion and that would extend beyond to confines of the aircraft.
I also note that the clearest videos all show that the 'flash' occurs after nose impact so your continued insistence in the face of that evidence illustrates a dogmatic appraoch to 911 on your part.

I'll be back later to look through the last few days of posts to see if you actually had anything new to say.

Because it should look like a spark coming from the side of the A/C. There's no other way around it.

sheeplesnshills · 14th September 2011, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

Because it should look like a spark coming from the side of the A/C. There's no other way around it.

what would??? try to make sense!

tmd2_1 · 14th September 2011, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

You accuse ME of being confusing??
In that above quote it seems that you have conflated the issue of the CiT Pentagon contentions with the flashes that are the subject of this thread! Indeed until the 'and a static discharge...' one cannot know that you have switched between the two.

As far as the CiT go you have offered their contentions up for consideration in the past I do believe. Any rational person would immediatly recognize their contentions as being utterly ridiculous.
'nuff said about the CiT then. If you wish though, we could dicsuss them in another thread, perhaps an existing one, just point the way.

On the issue of the flashes, please refresh my memory and tell me why an exploding oxygen bottle cannot be the second flash? You might as well also inform me as to why a sunlight illuminated vapour cone around the starboard wing cannot be the first 'flash'.

Then you might get around to explaining why, if none of the offered suggestions are possible in your view, that the contention that they (the 'flashes') are the launch and then impact of a missile, is so much better than the offered suggestions, given that no missile is ever visible at any time.

You might include how it is that your supposed missile could have significant KE, given that it physically cannot have a particularily high velocity (as proved by the math for a missile that has a flight time of at least one second ( flight times greater than that make the missile even slower), whether or not missile impact is prior to or after aircraft nose impact, compared to that of the aircraft.

ETA: If tmd fails to address these points this will be my last post in this thread.

What does CIT have to do with any of this? I told you what I said about CIT, and that is a flyover scenario is a theory. That's it. I said no more than that. Why is a missile more likely. As I've said it's not impossible everything else is (or in the case of discharge I found no evidence of anything like that happening before). I believe something could possibly be seen, what it is I don't know, but in the second video of my OP it sure looks like something traveling along the A/C and impacting the building.

Prove the KE? I already did that. Look through the previous posts, based on what I think the acceleration is (which is based on the flashes) I think the missile approaches star streak like speeds. I showed a video of a star streak penetrating an inch thick piece of heavy armor steel, and showed the columns in that area of building were less than an inch thick.

GlennB · 14th September 2011, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

.....
what it is I don't know, but in the second video of my OP it sure looks like something traveling along the A/C and impacting the building.

Much better quality videos show no missile at all. And clearly so.

It really is a mystery why you support your points with the poorest quality evidence. Rather like someone claiming a flat earth because "it's pretty damn flat around here"

So weird why you do this. Do you ever wonder why?

Craig4 · 14th September 2011, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

Because it should look like a spark coming from the side of the A/C. There's no other way around it.

Have you gone to the FBI with your concerns? How about the US Attorney? World Court perhaps? Come on, if you believe this show us you have the courage of your convictions. Risk your standing and reputation. Put your name behind it and make something happen. You could convince everyone on the forum and it still wouldn't matter. Let's see you take this "evidence" and accomplish something.

sheeplesnshills · 14th September 2011, 12:21 PM

[quote]

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

Why is a missile more likely.

More likely than what? no missile????

Quote:

(or in the case of discharge I found no evidence of anything like that happening before)

.

how many other airliners have flown into steel towers and be video taped in high def??? where the heck would you look for evidence other than the one clear video that exists????? aircraft do build up static charges and its hard to imaging a better grounded object than the WTC towers!

Quote:

I believe something could possibly be seen, what it is I don't know, but in the second video of my OP it sure looks like something traveling along the A/C and impacting the building.

I see nothing.

Quote:

Prove the KE? I already did that. Look through the previous posts, based on what I think the acceleration is (which is based on the flashes) I think the missile approaches star streak like speeds. I showed a video of a star streak penetrating an inch thick piece of heavy armor steel, and showed the columns in that area of building were less than an inch thick.

adding nothing other than slight damage to one column. Since we know the aircraft alone is more than enough to do destroy dozens of columns whats the point?. Adding a few 50lb bags of dog food in the hold would have more impact and would be much less likely to me thought as suspicious than a missile stuck on the plane!

Why can't you simply admit that you were wrong, a missile is a silly idea and move on. Thats what a sane person would do............

waypastvne · 14th September 2011, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

Because it should look like a spark coming from the side of the A/C. There's no other way around it.

Why should an exploding O2 bottle look like a spark ?

NoahFence · 14th September 2011, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

What does CIT have to do with any of this? I told you what I said about CIT, and that is a flyover scenario is a theory. That's it. I said no more than that. Why is a missile more likely. As I've said it's not impossible everything else is (or in the case of discharge I found no evidence of anything like that happening before). I believe something could possibly be seen, what it is I don't know, but in the second video of my OP it sure looks like something traveling along the A/C and impacting the building.

Prove the KE? I already did that. Look through the previous posts, based on what I think the acceleration is (which is based on the flashes) I think the missile approaches star streak like speeds. I showed a video of a star streak penetrating an inch thick piece of heavy armor steel, and showed the columns in that area of building were less than an inch thick.

A missile being fired at the World Trade Center in NYC at the time these images were taken is IMPOSSIBLE.

It is also IMPOSSIBLE that this image is from Auckland, New Zealand:

How can I say that?
Because we know what that is. We know where it is. It ain't New Zealand.

That's exactly how sure the rest of the world is that a missile didn't get fired from that plane. IT'S THAT FREAKING OBVIOUS

jaydeehess · 15th September 2011, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

what would??? try to make sense!

ditto

ETA: wait a minute... is this what you meant by what the F-4 into the concrete block should have in common with the 767 into the WTC?
IF SO...
1) what makes you believe that an oxygen bottle, let alone one the size of that in the Boeing, was on that F-4?

2)Over the course of many years I have watched that F-4 video dozens of times and really never saw any such sparks except for those associated with the rocket sled that the F-4 was attached to.

jaydeehess · 15th September 2011, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

What does CIT have to do with any of this? I told you what I said about CIT, and that is a flyover scenario is a theory. That's it. I said no more than that.

I was , in the post you quoted, showing that you were confusingly speaking to both topics at once and hypocritically accusing me of being confusing.

Now as far as the CiT having a theory, that is incorrect. They have a contention, they have a scenario, but it is so implausible and lacks any concrete evidence and is thus no more than that.
I brought up your mentioning of the CiT because you referred to it in something other than the derogatory terms it deserves and because in relation to the subject of tis thread it illustrates your lack of logical thought which carries over to this topic(the invisible missile)

Quote:

Why is a missile more likely. As I've said it's not impossible everything else is (or in the case of discharge I found no evidence of anything like that happening before). I believe something could possibly be seen, what it is I don't know, but in the second video of my OP it sure looks like something traveling along the A/C and impacting the building.

As I said before the clearest video of that aircraft shows NO missile and it shows the 'second flash' as occuring AFTER the plane's nose impacted the WTC and this flash occurs in proximity to the location of the large oxygen bottle. You do not get to pick and choose the video that best illustrates your POV, you should instead regard the best quality video as being the one that best illustrates the event. That said I have not seen any video that even suggests something travelling alongside the aircraft. While that is far from conclusive it stands the test of known phenomema and equipment in the a/c.

Quote:

Prove the KE? I already did that. Look through the previous posts, based on what I think the acceleration is (which is based on the flashes) I think the missile approaches star streak like speeds. I showed a video of a star streak penetrating an inch thick piece of heavy armor steel, and showed the columns in that area of building were less than an inch thick.

In other words you simply cannot follow the physics involved and the calculations I did that show that for a missile launched from the Boeing with 1 second or longer before a/c nose impact cannot be travelling at "star streak like speeds". A starstreak-like accelerating missile would launch a fraction of a sceond before nose impact.

I showed the math and proved that a missile launched 1 second before a/c nose impact would be travelling a little over Mach 1(900 fps) no where near "star streak like speeds" of 3.5 Mach.

Others showed the math that illustrates the minute addition of energy that such a missile would add to the impact of the Boeing 767. This alone makes the topic of a missile a moot point.

Yet in the face of all of this (clearest vid shows no missile, missile cannot have the velocity of a starstreak, missile adds insignificant energy to the event) you will not abandon the scenario. That is the hallmark of a dogmatic idealogue, tmd.

tmd2_1 · 10th March 2012, 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

Could a missile have been fired from a plane hitting the south tower? I don't know the answer to that. But these two videos I have here certainly present some interesting questions. It seems crazy but it just might be true. To my knowledge there is no tampering with the videos, they are just slowed down and zoomed in.

The first one the most interesting part is at about the 3 second mark and is circled. Not sure what that could be. Also towards the end he shows what could be secondary explosions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wc4ws...eature=related

The second video...the most interesting parts starts at around 23 seconds. It definitely looks like something is racing along the plane and than smashes into the building just before the plane.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x8fs...eature=related

These videos taken together are awfully interesting. I'm not saying that it is a missile, simply saying I don't know. I've looked and looked and can not find a better reason for this.

Originally Posted by Scott Sommers

Definitely. I saw the video, too. It was so convincing I don't know why it's still up on Youtube. The New World Order police should have taken it down and put its maker in a FEMA death camp. I'm still considering the idea of the Star Wars death ray as a possibility. There have been some very convincing arguments made recently for this possibility. I understand Ronald Reagan has admitted that he personally built something like this as part of the Star Wars Initiative. If that's true, then the idea that it's a missile would have to be wrong.

What do you think?

I apologize for bringing back a dead thread. But I just wanted to point out, we may a nostradamus among us. The second video I posted, has indeed been removed. I am not making any claims, accusations, or implications, simply pointing this out, because I think it is interesting and seems to happen to a lot of videos. Please note and I want to say this explicitly I am certainly not accusing Scott (or anyone else) of doing this or are involved somehow. Just wanted to make that clear, before anyone accuses me.

BStrong · 10th March 2012, 08:46 PM

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

I apologize for bringing back a dead thread. But I just wanted to point out, we may a nostradamus among us. The second video I posted, has indeed been removed. I am not making any claims, accusations, or implications, simply pointing this out, because I think it is interesting and seems to happen to a lot of videos. Please note and I want to say this explicitly I am certainly not accusing Scott (or anyone else) of doing this or are involved somehow. Just wanted to make that clear, before anyone accuses me.

Don't worry, nobody is going to accuse you of being Nostradamus.

Notorious dumbass, maybe.

tmd2_1 · 10th March 2012, 08:49 PM

Originally Posted by BStrong

Don't worry, nobody is going to accuse you of being Nostradamus.

Notorious dumbass, maybe.

hilarious you should take your act on the road.

BStrong · 10th March 2012, 08:53 PM

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

hilarious you should take your act on the road.

The material writes itself.

tmd2_1 · 10th March 2012, 08:54 PM

Originally Posted by BStrong

The material writes itself.

You would know.

AJM8125 · 10th March 2012, 08:56 PM

If it's a tuther video, there's probably hundreds of copies of it on youtube.

Sheesh.

BStrong · 10th March 2012, 08:58 PM

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

You would know.

Yes and as a matter of fact, that's the first correct statement you've made in this thread.

Tezro · 10th March 2012, 08:59 PM

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

I apologize for bringing back a dead thread. But I just wanted to point out, we may a nostradamus among us. The second video I posted, has indeed been removed. I am not making any claims, accusations, or implications, simply pointing this out, because I think it is interesting and seems to happen to a lot of videos. Please note and I want to say this explicitly I am certainly not accusing Scott (or anyone else) of doing this or are involved somehow. Just wanted to make that clear, before anyone accuses me.

"This video has been removed by the user"

Perhaps they came to their senses?

BStrong · 10th March 2012, 09:00 PM

Originally Posted by AJM8125

If it's a tuther video, there's probably hundreds of copies of it on youtube.

Sheesh.

And if not, some sharp boss truthbot will be happy to sell it to him.

BStrong · 10th March 2012, 09:01 PM

Originally Posted by Tezro

"This video has been removed by the user"

Perhaps they came to their senses?

No, "they" got to 'im, no doubt.

tmd2_1 · 10th March 2012, 09:04 PM

Originally Posted by BStrong

Yes and as a matter of fact, that's the first correct statement you've made in this thread.

Are you going to continue with childish insults, are actually attempt to make a point?

BStrong · 10th March 2012, 09:11 PM

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

Are you going to continue with childish insults, are actually attempt to make a point?

Since you've already proven beyond any doubt in this and every other thread you've posted in that you refuse to listen to any evidence, from any source that contradicts your fundementalist conspiracy theory beliefs, there's no point.

I've stated many times in these threads that I no longer attempt to educate truthbots - I'll not waste the energy.

My hat's off to those that do, they fight the good fight, but it's like teaching the dog math - it might feel good to do it, but at the end of the lesson, the dog is just a dog.

tmd2_1 · 10th March 2012, 09:20 PM

Originally Posted by BStrong

Since you've already proven beyond any doubt in this and every other thread you've posted in that you refuse to listen to any evidence, from any source that contradicts your fundementalist conspiracy theory beliefs, there's no point.

I've stated many times in these threads that I no longer attempt to educate truthbots - I'll not waste the energy.

My hat's off to those that do, they fight the good fight, but it's like teaching the dog math - it might feel good to do it, but at the end of the lesson, the dog is just a dog.

Oh come on now you can make a point. Even if not for me do it for those that are "capable" of understanding.

AJM8125 · 10th March 2012, 09:33 PM

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

Oh come on now you can make a point. Even if not for me do it for those that are "capable" of understanding.

You do realize he just made his point, don't you?

beachnut · 10th March 2012, 09:38 PM

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

Could a missile have been fired from a plane hitting the south tower? I don't know the answer to that. ...

This is the dumbest thing I have seen. The planes that hit the WTC towers were tracked by RADAR from takeoff to impact. They were stock airliners with real people on them which you essentially ignore and insult in their death.

Thus, no missiles. (because there is no way to modify stock airliners, because the pilots inspect the planes before takeoff, there is nothing we are not allowed to look at, if we see something wrong, we don't fly; you have no idea what flying is about)

When you do the physics, you find the energy of the impacts were equal in energy to 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT. The aircraft impacts were as devastating as some of the largest missiles the USAF has. (like cruise missiles)

There were no missiles because these planes were ordinary airliners, taken over by terrorists who murdered anyone in their way to do their mission. Are you trying to let the murderers off the hook? Why do you present delusional claims? Why do you apologize for terrorists, and make fun of those who died on 911 by bringing up nonsense, so idiotic no one supports it?

No matter how much fantasy you bring up, missiles are a far out idiotic fantasy, you can't support it with youtube. Your cited video is missing, then you failed.

You can copy video on youtube. If you failed to copy your massive FAKE evidence, you are your own NWO evildoer of nonsense.

Let me get this straight, your Pulitzer Prize video is gone, and you would love to blame the MIB/NWO, or what? Are you that paranoid?

Why did you fail to copy the video? Don't you 911 truth supporters want a Pulitzer for your favorite rag? Why are you in a movement with a goal of failure? What happen to the evaporated steel?

BStrong · 10th March 2012, 09:39 PM

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

Oh come on now you can make a point. Even if not for me do it for those that are "capable" of understanding.

There are 26 pages in this thread alone, with many fine points you have either ignored, hand waved away or otherwise avoided.

Same with your fellow travelers.

I will not grant you the dignity of being treated as an equal, as I would in honest discussion or debate, for you, just as your fellow travelers, have no desire for truth, only your fundementalist religon.

tmd2_1 · 10th March 2012, 09:45 PM

Originally Posted by BStrong

There are 26 pages in this thread alone, with many fine points you have either ignored, hand waved away or otherwise avoided.

Same with your fellow travelers.

I will not grant you the dignity of being treated as an equal, as I would in honest discussion or debate, for you, just as your fellow travelers, have no desire for truth, only your fundementalist religon.

Pretty much what I expected.

tmd2_1 · 10th March 2012, 09:47 PM

Originally Posted by AJM8125

You do realize he just made his point, don't you?

and that point would be what? that i'm not Nostradamus, but instead I am that name he called me? That's a great point.

BStrong · 10th March 2012, 09:50 PM

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

Pretty much what I expected.

You're getting comfortable with failure then, that's a good sign.

AJM8125 · 10th March 2012, 09:50 PM

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

and that point would be what? that i'm not Nostradamus, but instead I am instead that name he called. That's a great point.

Yep, you've missed it.

tmd2_1 · 10th March 2012, 09:51 PM

Originally Posted by BStrong

You're getting comfortable with failure then, that's a good sign.

We're back to the insults how lovely.

9th September 2011, 07:41 PM	#1001
newton3376 The Truth Movement.....still not at 1% Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 1,315	LOL this has gone on for 26 pages? You had the answer in your opening post..... In the words of Gage "Let's take a look" Originally Posted by tmd2_1 Could a missile have been fired from a plane hitting the south tower? So far you are starting out poorly...the question itself is moronic and the answer is "no" of course.....but you continue... Originally Posted by tmd2_1 I don't know the answer to that. It's "NO". That's pretty much it...next question.... Originally Posted by tmd2_1 But these two videos I have here certainly present some interesting questions. If you replace "interesting" with "stupid" then, yes, I have to agree. Originally Posted by tmd2_1 It seems crazy but it just might be true. Everything before the word "but" in that statement is spot on....it seems crazy because it is crazy.... The "just might be true" is where you leave the road of sanity and take the exit to fanatasy truther land....it's a magical, mystical place where anything is possible.....and the possibilities can even break the known laws of physics and no one will fault you. I would recommend that you leave la la land and come back to reality....it's not as exciting as the "agent-behind-every-corner-as-you-bravely-fight-to-wake-up-the-sheeple-to-the-global-NWO-conspiracy-of-9/11", but at least it's real.
	__________________ AE911 Truth....still failing to get 1% Last edited by newton3376; 9th September 2011 at 07:50 PM.

9th September 2011, 09:04 PM	#1004
Sam.I.Am Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Hunting Moose and Squirrel Posts: 4,154	Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills well as we saw from the high def video the flash was after the impact so this question is kind of moot but I'd love to hear your reasoning for why a static discharge is "all but impossible"?????? Because then it would destroy his delusions. I hear that when that happens some people simply lose it and end up in a rubber room wearing a nice comfy "I love me" jacket.
	__________________ "Swift, silent and deadly" was a part of my job description Upon hearing me say that my friend asked me "So you're a fart?"... About my avatar.

9th September 2011, 10:05 PM	#1006
Craig4 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 5,363	Originally Posted by tmd2_1 That one time you were clear. There's really nothing to address, the second flash was pre-impact, it's as simple as that. Assuming you weren't lying here, and you are, that does nothing to support the idea it was a missile. You have done nothing to establish that a missile came from the aircraft.
Craig4 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 5,363

13th September 2011, 01:10 PM	#1008
jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: I beedunk 40 miles from the border Posts: 10,822	Originally Posted by tmd2_1 As I said explain to me how an almost perfectly circular flash is visible AFTER penetration? Seems tmd was perhaps saying that the flash occured after the nose impacted the WTC. Yeah, yeah, I know tmdie you were asking how its possible to have a circular flash after impact has begun. I cannot envision why it would not be possible given that an explosing oxygen bottle will produce a roughly shperical explosion and that would extend beyond to confines of the aircraft. I also note that the clearest videos all show that the 'flash' occurs after nose impact so your continued insistence in the face of that evidence illustrates a dogmatic appraoch to 911 on your part. I'll be back later to look through the last few days of posts to see if you actually had anything new to say.
	Last edited by jaydeehess; 13th September 2011 at 01:16 PM.

13th September 2011, 03:06 PM	#1009
jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: I beedunk 40 miles from the border Posts: 10,822	Originally Posted by tmd2_1 Quote: Originally Posted by jaydeehess Well he also believes that it easy to fool dozens (hundreds) of witnesses to a large plane approaching the Pentagon into not seeing said aircraft rise up and zoom away while some other mechanism causes death and destruction at the Pentagon. So , yes. I believe that I have said all that I need to say about this missile. If tmd responds to the other points I made I will probably post again. otherwise this is my last post in this thread. I never said that. I said a flyover was a theory that was offered. I never gave and probability to it's likelihood. All has been said about the other possibilities, that almost all are impossible, and a static discharge seems all but impossible. You accuse ME of being confusing?? In that above quote it seems that you have conflated the issue of the CiT Pentagon contentions with the flashes that are the subject of this thread! Indeed until the 'and a static discharge...' one cannot know that you have switched between the two. As far as the CiT go you have offered their contentions up for consideration in the past I do believe. Any rational person would immediatly recognize their contentions as being utterly ridiculous. 'nuff said about the CiT then. If you wish though, we could dicsuss them in another thread, perhaps an existing one, just point the way. On the issue of the flashes, please refresh my memory and tell me why an exploding oxygen bottle cannot be the second flash? You might as well also inform me as to why a sunlight illuminated vapour cone around the starboard wing cannot be the first 'flash'. Then you might get around to explaining why, if none of the offered suggestions are possible in your view, that the contention that they (the 'flashes') are the launch and then impact of a missile, is so much better than the offered suggestions, given that no missile is ever visible at any time. You might include how it is that your supposed missile could have significant KE, given that it physically cannot have a particularily high velocity (as proved by the math for a missile that has a flight time of at least one second ( flight times greater than that make the missile even slower), whether or not missile impact is prior to or after aircraft nose impact, compared to that of the aircraft. ETA: If tmd fails to address these points this will be my last post in this thread.
	Last edited by jaydeehess; 13th September 2011 at 03:08 PM.

9th September 2011, 07:48 PM	#1002
sheeplesnshills Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 3,706	Originally Posted by tmd2_1 and a static discharge seems all but impossible. well as we saw from the high def video the flash was after the impact so this question is kind of moot but I'd love to hear your reasoning for why a static discharge is "all but impossible"??????

9th September 2011, 09:28 PM	#1005
AJM8125 NWO Black Ops Tagger Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: **** Creek, California Posts: 15,254	Originally Posted by Sam.I.Am Because then it would destroy his delusions. I hear that when that happens some people simply lose it and end up in a rubber room wearing a nice comfy "I love me" jacket. So that's why he refuses to answer this. It all makes sense now.

10th September 2011, 01:15 AM	#1007
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,480	'they are too stupid to realize how stupid they really are' Very well put. That describes truthers to a tee.

14th September 2011, 11:04 AM	#1010
tmd2_1 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 1,657	Originally Posted by jaydeehess Seems tmd was perhaps saying that the flash occured after the nose impacted the WTC. Yeah, yeah, I know tmdie you were asking how its possible to have a circular flash after impact has begun. I cannot envision why it would not be possible given that an explosing oxygen bottle will produce a roughly shperical explosion and that would extend beyond to confines of the aircraft. I also note that the clearest videos all show that the 'flash' occurs after nose impact so your continued insistence in the face of that evidence illustrates a dogmatic appraoch to 911 on your part. I'll be back later to look through the last few days of posts to see if you actually had anything new to say. Because it should look like a spark coming from the side of the A/C. There's no other way around it.
tmd2_1 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 1,657

14th September 2011, 11:11 AM	#1011
sheeplesnshills Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 3,706	Originally Posted by tmd2_1 Because it should look like a spark coming from the side of the A/C. There's no other way around it. what would??? try to make sense!

14th September 2011, 11:11 AM	#1012
tmd2_1 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 1,657	Originally Posted by jaydeehess You accuse ME of being confusing?? In that above quote it seems that you have conflated the issue of the CiT Pentagon contentions with the flashes that are the subject of this thread! Indeed until the 'and a static discharge...' one cannot know that you have switched between the two. As far as the CiT go you have offered their contentions up for consideration in the past I do believe. Any rational person would immediatly recognize their contentions as being utterly ridiculous. 'nuff said about the CiT then. If you wish though, we could dicsuss them in another thread, perhaps an existing one, just point the way. On the issue of the flashes, please refresh my memory and tell me why an exploding oxygen bottle cannot be the second flash? You might as well also inform me as to why a sunlight illuminated vapour cone around the starboard wing cannot be the first 'flash'. Then you might get around to explaining why, if none of the offered suggestions are possible in your view, that the contention that they (the 'flashes') are the launch and then impact of a missile, is so much better than the offered suggestions, given that no missile is ever visible at any time. You might include how it is that your supposed missile could have significant KE, given that it physically cannot have a particularily high velocity (as proved by the math for a missile that has a flight time of at least one second ( flight times greater than that make the missile even slower), whether or not missile impact is prior to or after aircraft nose impact, compared to that of the aircraft. ETA: If tmd fails to address these points this will be my last post in this thread. What does CIT have to do with any of this? I told you what I said about CIT, and that is a flyover scenario is a theory. That's it. I said no more than that. Why is a missile more likely. As I've said it's not impossible everything else is (or in the case of discharge I found no evidence of anything like that happening before). I believe something could possibly be seen, what it is I don't know, but in the second video of my OP it sure looks like something traveling along the A/C and impacting the building. Prove the KE? I already did that. Look through the previous posts, based on what I think the acceleration is (which is based on the flashes) I think the missile approaches star streak like speeds. I showed a video of a star streak penetrating an inch thick piece of heavy armor steel, and showed the columns in that area of building were less than an inch thick.
tmd2_1 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 1,657

14th September 2011, 11:18 AM	#1013
GlennB Jellied eel and offal fancier Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arcadia Posts: 8,955	Originally Posted by tmd2_1 ..... what it is I don't know, but in the second video of my OP it sure looks like something traveling along the A/C and impacting the building. Much better quality videos show no missile at all. And clearly so. It really is a mystery why you support your points with the poorest quality evidence. Rather like someone claiming a flat earth because "it's pretty damn flat around here" So weird why you do this. Do you ever wonder why?

14th September 2011, 11:53 AM	#1014
Craig4 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 5,363	Originally Posted by tmd2_1 Because it should look like a spark coming from the side of the A/C. There's no other way around it. Have you gone to the FBI with your concerns? How about the US Attorney? World Court perhaps? Come on, if you believe this show us you have the courage of your convictions. Risk your standing and reputation. Put your name behind it and make something happen. You could convince everyone on the forum and it still wouldn't matter. Let's see you take this "evidence" and accomplish something.
Craig4 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 5,363

14th September 2011, 12:21 PM	#1015
sheeplesnshills Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 3,706	[quote] Originally Posted by tmd2_1 Why is a missile more likely. More likely than what? no missile???? Quote: (or in the case of discharge I found no evidence of anything like that happening before) . how many other airliners have flown into steel towers and be video taped in high def??? where the heck would you look for evidence other than the one clear video that exists????? aircraft do build up static charges and its hard to imaging a better grounded object than the WTC towers! Quote: I believe something could possibly be seen, what it is I don't know, but in the second video of my OP it sure looks like something traveling along the A/C and impacting the building. I see nothing. Quote: Prove the KE? I already did that. Look through the previous posts, based on what I think the acceleration is (which is based on the flashes) I think the missile approaches star streak like speeds. I showed a video of a star streak penetrating an inch thick piece of heavy armor steel, and showed the columns in that area of building were less than an inch thick. adding nothing other than slight damage to one column. Since we know the aircraft alone is more than enough to do destroy dozens of columns whats the point?. Adding a few 50lb bags of dog food in the hold would have more impact and would be much less likely to me thought as suspicious than a missile stuck on the plane! Why can't you simply admit that you were wrong, a missile is a silly idea and move on. Thats what a sane person would do............

14th September 2011, 01:22 PM	#1016
waypastvne Thinker Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 173	Originally Posted by tmd2_1 Because it should look like a spark coming from the side of the A/C. There's no other way around it. Why should an exploding O2 bottle look like a spark ?
waypastvne Thinker Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 173

14th September 2011, 02:19 PM	#1017
NoahFence Psycho Kitty Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 9,324	Originally Posted by tmd2_1 What does CIT have to do with any of this? I told you what I said about CIT, and that is a flyover scenario is a theory. That's it. I said no more than that. Why is a missile more likely. As I've said it's not impossible everything else is (or in the case of discharge I found no evidence of anything like that happening before). I believe something could possibly be seen, what it is I don't know, but in the second video of my OP it sure looks like something traveling along the A/C and impacting the building. Prove the KE? I already did that. Look through the previous posts, based on what I think the acceleration is (which is based on the flashes) I think the missile approaches star streak like speeds. I showed a video of a star streak penetrating an inch thick piece of heavy armor steel, and showed the columns in that area of building were less than an inch thick. A missile being fired at the World Trade Center in NYC at the time these images were taken is IMPOSSIBLE. It is also IMPOSSIBLE that this image is from Auckland, New Zealand: How can I say that? Because we know what that is. We know where it is. It ain't New Zealand. That's exactly how sure the rest of the world is that a missile didn't get fired from that plane. IT'S THAT FREAKING OBVIOUS
	__________________ Our truest life is when we are in our dreams awake. -Henry David Thoreau Last edited by NoahFence; 14th September 2011 at 02:21 PM.

15th September 2011, 10:15 AM	#1018
jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: I beedunk 40 miles from the border Posts: 10,822	Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills what would??? try to make sense! ditto ETA: wait a minute... is this what you meant by what the F-4 into the concrete block should have in common with the 767 into the WTC? IF SO... 1) what makes you believe that an oxygen bottle, let alone one the size of that in the Boeing, was on that F-4? 2)Over the course of many years I have watched that F-4 video dozens of times and really never saw any such sparks except for those associated with the rocket sled that the F-4 was attached to.
	Last edited by jaydeehess; 15th September 2011 at 10:44 AM.

15th September 2011, 10:34 AM	#1019
jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: I beedunk 40 miles from the border Posts: 10,822	Originally Posted by tmd2_1 What does CIT have to do with any of this? I told you what I said about CIT, and that is a flyover scenario is a theory. That's it. I said no more than that. I was , in the post you quoted, showing that you were confusingly speaking to both topics at once and hypocritically accusing me of being confusing. Now as far as the CiT having a theory, that is incorrect. They have a contention, they have a scenario, but it is so implausible and lacks any concrete evidence and is thus no more than that. I brought up your mentioning of the CiT because you referred to it in something other than the derogatory terms it deserves and because in relation to the subject of tis thread it illustrates your lack of logical thought which carries over to this topic(the invisible missile) Quote: Why is a missile more likely. As I've said it's not impossible everything else is (or in the case of discharge I found no evidence of anything like that happening before). I believe something could possibly be seen, what it is I don't know, but in the second video of my OP it sure looks like something traveling along the A/C and impacting the building. As I said before the clearest video of that aircraft shows NO missile and it shows the 'second flash' as occuring AFTER the plane's nose impacted the WTC and this flash occurs in proximity to the location of the large oxygen bottle. You do not get to pick and choose the video that best illustrates your POV, you should instead regard the best quality video as being the one that best illustrates the event. That said I have not seen any video that even suggests something travelling alongside the aircraft. While that is far from conclusive it stands the test of known phenomema and equipment in the a/c. Quote: Prove the KE? I already did that. Look through the previous posts, based on what I think the acceleration is (which is based on the flashes) I think the missile approaches star streak like speeds. I showed a video of a star streak penetrating an inch thick piece of heavy armor steel, and showed the columns in that area of building were less than an inch thick. In other words you simply cannot follow the physics involved and the calculations I did that show that for a missile launched from the Boeing with 1 second or longer before a/c nose impact cannot be travelling at "star streak like speeds". A starstreak-like accelerating missile would launch a fraction of a sceond before nose impact. I showed the math and proved that a missile launched 1 second before a/c nose impact would be travelling a little over Mach 1(900 fps) no where near "star streak like speeds" of 3.5 Mach. Others showed the math that illustrates the minute addition of energy that such a missile would add to the impact of the Boeing 767. This alone makes the topic of a missile a moot point. Yet in the face of all of this (clearest vid shows no missile, missile cannot have the velocity of a starstreak, missile adds insignificant energy to the event) you will not abandon the scenario. That is the hallmark of a dogmatic idealogue, tmd.
	Last edited by jaydeehess; 15th September 2011 at 10:40 AM.

10th March 2012, 08:15 PM	#1020
tmd2_1 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 1,657	Originally Posted by tmd2_1 Could a missile have been fired from a plane hitting the south tower? I don't know the answer to that. But these two videos I have here certainly present some interesting questions. It seems crazy but it just might be true. To my knowledge there is no tampering with the videos, they are just slowed down and zoomed in. The first one the most interesting part is at about the 3 second mark and is circled. Not sure what that could be. Also towards the end he shows what could be secondary explosions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wc4ws...eature=related The second video...the most interesting parts starts at around 23 seconds. It definitely looks like something is racing along the plane and than smashes into the building just before the plane. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x8fs...eature=related These videos taken together are awfully interesting. I'm not saying that it is a missile, simply saying I don't know. I've looked and looked and can not find a better reason for this. Originally Posted by Scott Sommers Definitely. I saw the video, too. It was so convincing I don't know why it's still up on Youtube. The New World Order police should have taken it down and put its maker in a FEMA death camp. I'm still considering the idea of the Star Wars death ray as a possibility. There have been some very convincing arguments made recently for this possibility. I understand Ronald Reagan has admitted that he personally built something like this as part of the Star Wars Initiative. If that's true, then the idea that it's a missile would have to be wrong. What do you think? I apologize for bringing back a dead thread. But I just wanted to point out, we may a nostradamus among us. The second video I posted, has indeed been removed. I am not making any claims, accusations, or implications, simply pointing this out, because I think it is interesting and seems to happen to a lot of videos. Please note and I want to say this explicitly I am certainly not accusing Scott (or anyone else) of doing this or are involved somehow. Just wanted to make that clear, before anyone accuses me.
tmd2_1 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 1,657

10th March 2012, 08:46 PM	#1021
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,823	Originally Posted by tmd2_1 I apologize for bringing back a dead thread. But I just wanted to point out, we may a nostradamus among us. The second video I posted, has indeed been removed. I am not making any claims, accusations, or implications, simply pointing this out, because I think it is interesting and seems to happen to a lot of videos. Please note and I want to say this explicitly I am certainly not accusing Scott (or anyone else) of doing this or are involved somehow. Just wanted to make that clear, before anyone accuses me. Don't worry, nobody is going to accuse you of being Nostradamus. Notorious dumbass, maybe.

10th March 2012, 08:49 PM	#1022
tmd2_1 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 1,657	Originally Posted by BStrong Don't worry, nobody is going to accuse you of being Nostradamus. Notorious dumbass, maybe. hilarious you should take your act on the road.
tmd2_1 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 1,657

10th March 2012, 08:53 PM	#1023
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,823	Originally Posted by tmd2_1 hilarious you should take your act on the road. The material writes itself.

10th March 2012, 08:54 PM	#1024
tmd2_1 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 1,657	Originally Posted by BStrong The material writes itself. You would know.
tmd2_1 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 1,657

10th March 2012, 08:56 PM	#1025
AJM8125 NWO Black Ops Tagger Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: **** Creek, California Posts: 15,254	If it's a tuther video, there's probably hundreds of copies of it on youtube. Sheesh.

10th March 2012, 08:58 PM	#1026
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,823	Originally Posted by tmd2_1 You would know. Yes and as a matter of fact, that's the first correct statement you've made in this thread.

10th March 2012, 08:59 PM	#1027
Tezro Student Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 40	Originally Posted by tmd2_1 I apologize for bringing back a dead thread. But I just wanted to point out, we may a nostradamus among us. The second video I posted, has indeed been removed. I am not making any claims, accusations, or implications, simply pointing this out, because I think it is interesting and seems to happen to a lot of videos. Please note and I want to say this explicitly I am certainly not accusing Scott (or anyone else) of doing this or are involved somehow. Just wanted to make that clear, before anyone accuses me. "This video has been removed by the user" Perhaps they came to their senses?
Tezro Student Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 40

10th March 2012, 09:00 PM	#1028
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,823	Originally Posted by AJM8125 If it's a tuther video, there's probably hundreds of copies of it on youtube. Sheesh. And if not, some sharp boss truthbot will be happy to sell it to him.

10th March 2012, 09:01 PM	#1029
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,823	Originally Posted by Tezro "This video has been removed by the user" Perhaps they came to their senses? No, "they" got to 'im, no doubt.

10th March 2012, 09:04 PM	#1030
tmd2_1 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 1,657	Originally Posted by BStrong Yes and as a matter of fact, that's the first correct statement you've made in this thread. Are you going to continue with childish insults, are actually attempt to make a point?
tmd2_1 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 1,657

10th March 2012, 09:11 PM	#1031
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,823	Originally Posted by tmd2_1 Are you going to continue with childish insults, are actually attempt to make a point? Since you've already proven beyond any doubt in this and every other thread you've posted in that you refuse to listen to any evidence, from any source that contradicts your fundementalist conspiracy theory beliefs, there's no point. I've stated many times in these threads that I no longer attempt to educate truthbots - I'll not waste the energy. My hat's off to those that do, they fight the good fight, but it's like teaching the dog math - it might feel good to do it, but at the end of the lesson, the dog is just a dog.

10th March 2012, 09:20 PM	#1032
tmd2_1 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 1,657	Originally Posted by BStrong Since you've already proven beyond any doubt in this and every other thread you've posted in that you refuse to listen to any evidence, from any source that contradicts your fundementalist conspiracy theory beliefs, there's no point. I've stated many times in these threads that I no longer attempt to educate truthbots - I'll not waste the energy. My hat's off to those that do, they fight the good fight, but it's like teaching the dog math - it might feel good to do it, but at the end of the lesson, the dog is just a dog. Oh come on now you can make a point. Even if not for me do it for those that are "capable" of understanding.
tmd2_1 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 1,657

10th March 2012, 09:33 PM	#1033
AJM8125 NWO Black Ops Tagger Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: **** Creek, California Posts: 15,254	Originally Posted by tmd2_1 Oh come on now you can make a point. Even if not for me do it for those that are "capable" of understanding. You do realize he just made his point, don't you?

10th March 2012, 09:38 PM	#1034
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,902	Originally Posted by tmd2_1 Could a missile have been fired from a plane hitting the south tower? I don't know the answer to that. ... This is the dumbest thing I have seen. The planes that hit the WTC towers were tracked by RADAR from takeoff to impact. They were stock airliners with real people on them which you essentially ignore and insult in their death. Thus, no missiles. (because there is no way to modify stock airliners, because the pilots inspect the planes before takeoff, there is nothing we are not allowed to look at, if we see something wrong, we don't fly; you have no idea what flying is about) When you do the physics, you find the energy of the impacts were equal in energy to 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT. The aircraft impacts were as devastating as some of the largest missiles the USAF has. (like cruise missiles) There were no missiles because these planes were ordinary airliners, taken over by terrorists who murdered anyone in their way to do their mission. Are you trying to let the murderers off the hook? Why do you present delusional claims? Why do you apologize for terrorists, and make fun of those who died on 911 by bringing up nonsense, so idiotic no one supports it? No matter how much fantasy you bring up, missiles are a far out idiotic fantasy, you can't support it with youtube. Your cited video is missing, then you failed. You can copy video on youtube. If you failed to copy your massive FAKE evidence, you are your own NWO evildoer of nonsense. Let me get this straight, your Pulitzer Prize video is gone, and you would love to blame the MIB/NWO, or what? Are you that paranoid? Why did you fail to copy the video? Don't you 911 truth supporters want a Pulitzer for your favorite rag? Why are you in a movement with a goal of failure? What happen to the evaporated steel?

10th March 2012, 09:39 PM	#1035
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,823	Originally Posted by tmd2_1 Oh come on now you can make a point. Even if not for me do it for those that are "capable" of understanding. There are 26 pages in this thread alone, with many fine points you have either ignored, hand waved away or otherwise avoided. Same with your fellow travelers. I will not grant you the dignity of being treated as an equal, as I would in honest discussion or debate, for you, just as your fellow travelers, have no desire for truth, only your fundementalist religon.

10th March 2012, 09:45 PM	#1036
tmd2_1 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 1,657	Originally Posted by BStrong There are 26 pages in this thread alone, with many fine points you have either ignored, hand waved away or otherwise avoided. Same with your fellow travelers. I will not grant you the dignity of being treated as an equal, as I would in honest discussion or debate, for you, just as your fellow travelers, have no desire for truth, only your fundementalist religon. Pretty much what I expected.
tmd2_1 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 1,657