I think it's best to pick this up next year at the 16th anniversary. I'm done for now. It was great debating with a few of you's though and I did a learn a few things here and there.
Cheers :wave:
Remembering 9/11
- Thread starter Insidious Von
- Start date
Cheers :wave:
No no, please humor me because I've participated in other threads and I do not recall one Fire Chief concluding that it was a controlled demolition, nor that Building 7 didn't sustain enough damage to cause it's collapse. In fact, we have firefighters that measured the bulge in the structure and predicted its imminent collapse. I do recall a few sound bites of firefighters saying they heard explosions but nothing more.
So spoon feed all of us.
Nice try but it's a case of APPLES vs. ORANGES.Supercharge said:
You can see a plane from afar travel great distances at high speed, BUT when it happens very close (as in that ground-level surveillance camera), it's just a blur my friend.
Think of a racing car passing in front of you within a short distance. Your camera will only see a blur.
Also, look at the frames per second on the video. Look how far the car advances every second of play (starts about 1:02). Take an airplane doing 10x that speed, and it will show up on one frame two at the very most, and quite a distance away. And given its speed, it would certainly be a blurry shot at best.
So, you can't say definitively it wasn't an airplane, a space shuttle, or an alien aircraft.
I think you have taken enough of a beating too.......you haven't really provided anything concrete.
So where would the cameras be pointing? Up into the sky only? Tell me you're not serious with this line of thinking?
Nobody would expect any kind of attack on the Pentagon, yet it still has a lot of camera pointed at various angles no doubt and yet, only a 6-7 second clip from one distant camera?
How convenient.
Yeah, that's some surprise alright. lol
Planes are known to be hijacked around 8:20am, planes hit WTC around 8:40, pentagon is hit after 9:15am ....yeah, some surprise.............or incompetence by (apparently) the best military in the world. lol
A) Yes however following the alternative - would you please explain the street light damage, where the missile came from, where the f!ck is Flight 77, the crew and why not one bolt has turned up; who did it and why ? Why the missile and not the plane ??? It's hard to offer some vague alternative concept leaving out the most important details.
B) The aluminium hollow tube (i.e. the plane) hit a reinforced concrete structure at over 500 mph - it virtually disintegrated on impact. The idea of a Wile E Coyote silhouette entering the building is fantasy. I suggest you google some aircraft collisions into buildings and you will find very little large pieces other than steel engine parts exist.
C)
If you could tell which little pieces came from the plane from the rest of the Pentagon debris - they should have given you some tweezers and glue to do it for them.
D) Why did it have to skid ? It did hit at an angle:
Yeah, I'm comfortable with the plane until someone comes up with a complete explanation that covers the evidence presented.
Wow, doesn't take much to convince you, once the government says it's "gold", it's "gold" to you isn't it?
As for your image of "destruction at the pentaCon, well, funny enough, here's a page out of VeteransToday.com that addresses that image.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/05/01/top-ten-911-cons-fraud-vitiates-everything-fve/
As for question "D":
The above link also answer it, but I'll paste it here for all to see, seems quite logical, but for those who "believe" otherwise......
According to the official account, AA Flight 77 approached the Pentagon on an acute north-east trajectory, barely skimming the ground at over 500 mph and taking out multiple lampposts, which would have ripped its wings open and caused the plane to burst into flame.
The aerodynamics of flight, including “downwash”, moreover, would have made the official trajectory–flying at high speed barely above ground level–physically impossible, because a Boeing 757 flying over 500 mph could not have come closer than 60 or more feet to the ground, which means that the official account is neither physically nor aerodynamically possible.
I noticed you didn't acknowledge the engine they found in New York, which wasn't the proper engine (cooling duct) for the planes that hit the towers.
Wanna give that one a shot?
Yes, we all learned that the Towers fell at a second over the rate of free fall, which means there were zero resistance for the top 1/4 of the building that was hit.
Basically, Newton and his 3rd Law were out for breakfast that morning..............and early dinner that evening as well.
Yes, again, Newton's 3rd Law is absolute bullshit and the Twin Towers came down through a miraculous force from up above with the "Hand of God" helping it down.
It wouldn't be the first time the Hand of God has made his presence known.
You don't even slightly understand Newton's 3rd law, the law of gravity, or any other physics concept that is relevant here. Otherwise you wouldn't still be posting.
And the sad part is the amount of effort promo and others put into trying to teach you.. but you didn't/couldn't/wouldn't learn.
Try dropping a bowling ball on a house of cards and come back and tell me how much the house of cards slowed down the bowling ball and/or how you relate that to Newton's 3rd law.
Which is it now?I noticed you didn't acknowledge the engine they found in New York, which wasn't the proper engine (cooling duct) for the planes that hit the towers.
Wanna give that one a shot?
You were arguing the towers came down by controlled demolition.
What does that have to do with what engine parts they found?
This is an interesting comparison of the video footage at the pentagon that builds on what has been posted here.
You're comparing a bowling ball to a deck of cards to REALLY TRY to twist Newton's 3rd Law into your OPINION on the events of 9/11, that doesn't work.
So you believe that the top 1/4 portion of the building, pulverized into dust the remaining 3/4 of the building. Got it, thanks.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law
I hope you're being sarcastic when you ask me this? LOL
The government claims it two Boeing 767's struck the Twin Towers, then apparently an engine was found not far from the site which was taken in as "evidence" of a plane.
However, the engine that was found, belonged to an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT plane, a 737.
I never said I didn't believe planes hit the building, only that the wrong engine was found around the site.
This was a major fuck up. lol
Do we understand now? If you can't understand the point of that post, are you sure you comprehend any of the events that day?
Because this one was really quite simple.
Oh yeah, they also found a fully intact passport from one of the terrorists - again, wrong engine found at the site. lol
http://www.rense.com/general63/wtcc.Htm
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/34o4y0/911_engine_that_shot_out_of_the_south_tower_was/
NIST? You mean the government agency that changed its tune once engineers called them out on their initial report questioning their science? LOL
Since you seem to know it all, any thoughts on the engine found at the "scene of the crime"? Considering the two planes that struck the buildings would not have used that particular engine?
Interesting.....I have never lowered myself to insult you, I am only pointing things out and asking questions. It tells me a lot about who you are, how you debate, and when you don't get your way you resort to this.
You have done this over and over in this thread, and it really takes all credibility out of your posts.
That's nice.
But you understand now correct?
Official story, two Boeing 767's hit the Towers, then an engine is found a few blocks away, the only problem is, it's from an entirely different plane.
Yes?
Yes, NIST. You may need to take a night class in highschool physics in order to prepare to read the report.
And yes, the forces of the falling mass impacting versus the structural suspension system was indeed similar to a bowling ball falling on a house of cards
But please feel free instead of doing anything that might limit your ignorance, to continue saying crazy and ignorant things, believe every dammed fool thing uploaded to YouTube, and spam the forum with more reams of garbage.
If you want to have a real discussion or debate, take all the sarcasm and innuendos out of your posts to me, otherwise I can't be bothered.
There is evidence for all the stories, but the ones supporting the terrorists theory is the strongest and the most likely by a long shot.
Fuji's post about cards is entirely accurate. The logistics of 'covering up' a conspiracy are huge beyond imagination.
That is why it is so hard to believe.
Check out this article.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-blocks-Ground-Zero-wing-flap-9-11-plane.html
