>>Just asking now........how do you consider Amy's signature of UA 175, frozen 1/10th of a second before impact with a "the magic show! building heals itself, no crash physics" quality information worth consideration? What are you considering?<<
seabass, I have learned a lot, both directly and indirectly, from Amy's posts - indirectly, through researching a lot of what she has posted, attempting to ascertain for myself whether or not she is full of bull. What I have found is that she seems to have done her homework well with regard to issues I have dug further into.
At the present time, I do not subscribe to a "no planes theory" though I have viewed every video on that subject that Amy and others have linked. For one thing, I remember my daughter telling me on 9/11 that her husband said that what sounded like a huge plane had flown so low over their apartment that morning that he had dived under his desk, fearing that the plane was going to crash. Of course, that is evidence only that a plane might have been in the area of the WTC that morning; I say "might" because her husband did not see anything from his position under his desk. The only conclusion I have arrived at to date with regard to the "no planes theory" is that video fakery could be generated by either or both sides of the 9/11 truth issue.
Let me ask you this: Is Amy's UA 175 picture any more illogical than the official story of a 767 disappearing through a 16 to 20 foot wide hole, making no wing or engine holes and leaving no wings or engines on the ground?
What am I considering? I am considering all interesting ideas with regard to what might have actually happened on 9/11 while searching for credible evidence that either supports those ideas or shoots them down.
