We’ve already been over the physics of the airliner crashing into the wall of the South Tower. I explained, with math and physics, why you shouldn’t expect to be able to see the rear of the plane slow down as the front hits the building. You have not addressed this at all, you just keep saying that it’s overwhelming that you’re right.
Can you address these points?
No, they aren’t easy to fake, because [ul]
[li]there are hundreds of them from many different observers[/li][li]they would have to be faked very nearly in real time - I saw the second airliner crash on TV[/li][li]there is no motive for the media to fake this - they would make enormously more money with the revelation of a government conspiracy[/li][li]a conspiracy involving hundreds if not thousands of people is impossible to keep quiet[/li][/ul]
I have not seen any such evidence. An “alleged” airliner? If you are claiming there wasn’t really an airliner, where did all the parts come from? Nor have you shown that the airliner’s behavior was anomalous - it crashed into the tower, there was a massive fire, the tower collapsed. The anomaly would be if it behaved as you seem to expect - bouncing off. A plane weighing a quarter million pounds going at 500mph isn’t going to bounce off the side of a building.
And again - if the buildings were really brought down by demolition charges, how did the conspirators know the floors the planes would hit, and the times? And how did they convince Osama bin Laden to confess to doing it?
So the idea is that somebody staged the greatest terrorist incident in US history, killing thousands of people, creating a recession, so as “not to rock the boat”. That is difficult to understand - perhaps you could explain how it would have rocked the boat not to stage 911 in the first place.
Regards,
Shodan
The cell phone calls were ALL bogus, you don’t make cell phone calls from an airliner (that is with state of the art 2001 phones, etc … ).
what you have written constitutes speculation about what may have been the motivation for the attack, and about the destruction of the towers, if the whole airliners story is fake, it makes a non-issue out of where the explosives have to be placed.
" A plane weighing a quarter million pounds going at 500mph isn’t going to bounce off the side of a building." Nor should it be expected to simply glide right in totally disappearing inside the building, the alleged crash as shown in the video is wrong.
How many times have you seen a plane hit a building?
Just ONE POINT here
totally straight up legit physics, WTC7 spent 2.25 sec falling at the acceleration of gravity and kept its shape while falling straight down during that time.
how was that done without controlled demolition?
you don’t actually have to see an airliner collide with a building in order to have a concept of what should be seen if such an event should happen.
loop_counter = loop_counter + 1;
Console::Writeline("loop_counter = " + loop_counter);
Let’s run this and …
loop_counter = 249
Cool.
Bugs Bunny cartoons are not real life.
You’ve seen a video of a plane NOT bouncing off a solid wall. That is what real life looks like.
I came in post the same question. Just how where all of these photos and videos supposedly faked? And as Shodan said, it would have to happened in real time.
Who told you this? Where do you get your (dis)information?
" possible to use cell phones with varying success"
so cell phone use is not a guaranteed success, and its a chance that it may work and also a chance that it may not work. there are enough anomalies with the reporting of said phone calls to convince me that these calls are totally bogus, and in addition, the mountain of evidence showing that the whole hijacked airliners fiasco is fake.
You keep insisting that it can’t happen without controlled demolition, but you have no basis for that assertion. All it takes is gravity.
And saying “It didn’t happen the way I imagine it should have happened” is indicative of a failure of your imagination, not a vast international conspiracy.
Gravity. If something is in freefall, it will keep it’s shape regardless of why it’s in freefall.
If someone jumps off a bridge, is that caused by controlled demolition?
Controlled demolition starts from the bottom, the Towers collapsed from the top.
Controlled demolition involves explosives. No explosions of that type were heard.
Controlled demolition involves weeks of building prep that would be impossible to hide.
Asked and answered.
So you discount the “chance it might work”. That says there is a chance it DID work.
The only anomalies are in your imagination.
What about the Airfones?
Then do your homework and actually create the physical model that shows it.
FWIW, what happened on 9/11 fits my concept of what should be seen if such an event should happen.
Just a few quick yes-or-no questions.
Do you understand that, for most of us, what we see in those videos fits our concepts of what should be seen if such an event should happen?
Do you understand that you have been utterly unconvincing to anyone here throughout this thread?
Do you understand that “the media faked it” is a premise that requires its own independent evidence, and actually makes your claims less realistic to everyone here?
Do you understand why I keep asking you to do your homework?
Faked by whom and for what purpose?
Exercise the courage of your own convictions, FFS.
The ONLY videos that are critical to the case are the ones that actually show the south wall of the south tower, there are only 3 or maybe 4 of these, all of the rest of the video alleging to show the crash of “FLT175” were faked real-time because they didn’t have to show the alleged penetration event they just showed an image of an airliner and then the explosion from the alleged crash, all the time the south wall was obscured by anothe skyscraper or was shot from the north side of the south tower.
incredulity over how these things may have been accomplished
does nothing to negate the obvious fake images that were promoted as the alleged crash of “FLT175”