there’s a difference between stating a goofy theory and explaining something. You haven’t explained what you “know” didn’t happen. Your belief that aircraft disintegrate entirely upon impact is flat wrong. I’ve shown you a what a much flimsier piece of aluminum can do at much slower speeds.
UL rating means that things like dropped cigarette ashes, matches and other light flammables do not cause the items to catch fire.
Throw a burning wall of fuel at these things and most will burn.
No, it was not. Do tell us what it should have look like. Show your work.
We’re making sport of you. You are not a serious issue.
Wait, I think he’s arguing that flying a huge airplane into the side of a skyscraper built decades ago would show minimal damage? That the plane should have disintegrated against its side?
Wow.
This is NOT a “Coke vs Pepsi” argument this is bigger than even a matter of national security
this issue is pivotal to how humanity survives the next few decades.
there is a VERY serious problem here in that I have made the assumption that it would be common knowledge about the construction of the towers ( etc … )
and basic laws of physics as they relate to collision events … however I was wrong, people bring up bits like the WTC tower wall should be easy to breach because it was mostly glass windows.
or the idea that 3 tons of mass to be displaced in a collision at 540 mph would somehow be insignificant because it constituted aprox 2% of the mass of the airliner.
there are concepts that I assumed would be common knowledge, but apparently are not … I’m sorry for not only AMERICA but the HUMAN race will see consequences of the BIG LIE.
There are obvious anomalies that can be sorted out with logic rather than advanced mathematics. Like for instance why did all of the airliners virtually disappear? How much of any one airliner was recovered and documented? why did three skyscrapers “collapse” in the manner observed? Steel framed buildings completely destroyed by fire? what?
the level of madness here is astounding!
Let’s pretend that we disregard all the previous conversations we have had this subject and blindly accept your idea that it didn’t happen the way those pesky “facts” supposedly show it did: What then?
Do you quit posting because your job here is complete…or do you finally reveal THE TRUTH about what really happened?
I believe you’ve already been introduced to irony.
Your lack of understanding of physics is not a matter of even the most local interest.
None of what you are saying makes any sense. None of it agrees with the evidence. Your attempt at an equation is plainly wrong, if not completely nonsensical. If you want people to care about what you’re saying, you have to say something worth listening to.
Wow - impressive. I had doubts you were even aware that was a suitable phrase to utter at times, for all of us. Work with that.
Do you agree that if you see a bit of stage magic, you can appreciate the fact that its an illusion without having to know exactly how it was done. Right?
so what we have here is an illusion, the trick was to convince mass numbers of people that airliners were hijacked & used as weapons, however, the flaw in the trick is that video of the alleged “FLT175” shows something that could not be, the only way that what was shown on the video could have been true, would be for the wall of the WTC tower to have been made of paper.
There is additionally the fact that in 4 airliner crashes ( or alleged airliner crashes ) the airliner was made to disappear … really good trick that …
and in three cases, the airliner was said to have penetrated a wall and totally disappeared on the other side of said wall. ( what are the odds )
Not to mention the fact that attempting to fly an airliner at 540 mph so near sea level is a problem, how to get the aircraft to achieve that speed, and then the fact that once having attained that speed by diving, the airliner would have to level off and then perform as a glider because at that speed the planes jet engines would not contribute to the propulsion of the aircraft.
once examined in detail, the whole story of 9/11/2001 falls apart.
So, again, if this really is a matter of global interest, how come there is no statically significant number of scientists globally supporting 9/11 truth? Why isn’t the entire scientific community united?
There were pieces of the planes recovered. Remember, the wreckage was mixed into the wreckage of the Towers. You ignored the links to news stories of debris recovery.
A long time ago, I was hit on my bicycle by a full size pick up truck, roughly 5,000 lbs(give or take) towing a stock trailer. I weigh 175. Just dealing with the truck, that means I weighed 3.5% of the truck. The driver said he never felt the impact, just heard it.
So you ranting about 2% as being a significant obstacle is pretty much ridiculous.
As a card-carrying member of the Forces of Evil, I ask that the OP vigorously continue his or her efforts.
Have you ever seen the movie NETWORK?
first you have to get MAD AS HELL
…
for all too many people right now, the status quo is just fine,
however the status quo is having wars of aggression, in addition to a Congress that passes laws that in effect are Constitutional amendments but never ratified by the states. and all the while air travelers are subjected to totally illegal, unconstitutional search & seizure procedures that amount to total rip-off of the citizens here.
The very first thing I want to see is a raising of the awareness of people
as to the sorts of things that are going on, war is indeed a racket and Congress does NOT work for WE THE PEOPLE, they work for GREED INC.
What has any of that got to do with 9/11? All that could be true even if the events happened exactly as we saw. If this is what you care about, why not drop the Truther bullshit and just spread this message?
Not a valid comparison.
Here’s where you fall apart. This is simply not true. So if we extend this rather feeble ‘stage magic’ metaphor you are insisting that Penn and Teller are using massive laser beams to intercept the bullets in their bullet catching trick. WHich is something that is a) unworkable, b) unneeded, and c) wouldn’t help the trick in any real manner.
(bolding mine)
Large numbers of airplane parts o were found in multiple locations around the WTC. This has been pointed out to you in this thread and your failure to acknowledge people pointing it out is intellectually dishonest.
As for the Pentagon plane, it more certainly did not crash as parts are visible not only outside the Pentagon but rather guesome photos are availble as part of the Moussaoui trial.
Y’know, you’ve already embarassed yourself in physics. Please do not make a fool of yourself trying to tell us what a plane can or cannot do, OK?
Nope. Nothig of the kind happens unless you somehow think ignoring evidence presented to you is ‘examining in detail’.
There have been engineering papers written in nations not exactly the most friendly to the USA that pretty much agree with NIST conclusions.
For the record, not one single AE911T truther has developed a narrative of what happened. Nor have they published a single paper in a reputable journal to support their claims.
Of course not. Because that would require some effort. It’s trivial to point out things that seem weird or counterintuitive about any given event like this, especially if you don’t actually know what it’s supposed to look like - I’m reminded of the moon landing hoaxers who complain that the shadows don’t make sense and who don’t actually know anything about and lighting.
But actually explaining what did happen? That’s a little harder. It opens your internal model up to the same scrutiny you offer the official story, and can often be very revealing - it’s easy to argue “the hole shouldn’t look like that” when people don’t think that your explanation is “the planes were holograms, and so were the holes”.
But by all means…
…Keep doing this. It’s very funny.
You’ve made this claim several times, but as far as I can see, you haven’t explained why you think how the towers “really came down” will affect the survival of humanity. That’s a pretty big claim. Cite?
Since an automobile had been driven over 763 mph, faster than the speed of sound, it should be a trivial matter to get a jet plane airborne going over 200 mph slower at sea level.