The attacks in the gulf of Tonkin never happened. Would you believe McNamara? Would you believe the LBJ tapes finally released in regards to this non incident? Yet this is what got us fully engaged in the Vietnam war. Now, the attack that didn't happen was not intentional, but it was definitely used by LBJ to get us fully engaged in that war. And the public was led to believe, even after LBJ knew the truth, that we had been attacked. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AaGVAipGp0 Who should be tried for treason? I do not know, but there needs to be a real investigation, and let the cards fall where they will. But given the nature of this attack, we would only find elites responsible.
It turns out that the anti conspiracy people, many who are here posting in this thread, are less saner than the serious person who doesn't buy into the "official story". Here, read it for yourself... So did you recognize yourself after reading this? http://www.phibetaiota.net/2013/07/berto-jongman-new-studies-conspiracy-theorists-sane-government-dupes-crazy-hostile-conspiracy-meta-recap/
The airliner or image of an airliner that struck the South tower, was not towing a banner saying this is the hijacked "FLT175" .... OK so some people got on an airliner and said airliner disappeared.... does that somehow prove that any given airliner ended up in any of the four crash sites? The serious problem here is the fact that airliners are NOT hardened steel punches and so can not be expected to leave behind impressions of themselves in skyscraper walls.... Not Happening!
Here is the real deal on this and I know that its going to be difficult to get beyond all the propaganda that has been dished out in the last 13 years, however, please think about this, an airliner flying through air and dealing with the resistance that air gives, and then striking a wall, and having to either move several tons of box columns & or crush-up the nose of the aircraft, I challenge you to look at the amount of deceleration that an aircraft would sustain in terms of reducing its velocity by 5 meters/sec in the first 2 meters of travel after first contact with the nose of said aircraft, and can ANY aircraft be expected to sustain that sort of stress without catastrophic structural failure? That is, what could be rightly expected here, is that the aircraft would contact the wall and then break up, causing a disorganized mass of wreckage to strike the wall & not making the wing shaped gash as was shown on TV.
do you really believe the crap you type? What were the wings supposed to do? Just fall off when the nose of the plane impacted just microseconds before?
What is your calculation as to how many "microseconds" it took between the first contact of the nose & then the wings? You have a number for this, ..... right?
Without citing a number I'm asked if I dispute it(?) and the question what hit the towers is separate from the analysis that proves it could not possibly have been an airliner. Note that 2 meters of travel @ 240 meters/sec = 8.3333 * 10^-3 sec, Microseconds = 10^-6 Do you want to discuss the numbers or what?
no, because your numbers mean nothing. The plane could have been going only 50 mph and the wings would have still hit the building.
First of all, the numbers are NOT "my" numbers they are the numbers that describe the event or even the alleged event as would have had to have been with a big Boeing airliner crashing into the WTC tower. Why do you say that at 50 mph the wings would have still hit the building? Are you assuming that the aircraft would have so much KE so as to make the nose of the aircraft penetrate the wall and indeed shred the aircraft all way down to the wings? One of the excuses cited for the outrageous speed of "FLT175" was the need for very large KE in order to guarantee penetration by the airliner. There is a very serious problem here in that the physics of the alleged airliner crash would have the aircraft decelerating at a minimum of 30g and doing so for at least 60 milliseconds, that is plenty of time for the structure of the aircraft to react to the stress and break apart.
Exactly when did I ever use the words "bounced off" the building? The penetration is in question as to exactly how much of the body of said aircraft would penetrate, but given the using up of the KE and the fact that the deceleration factor would have stressed the aircraft beyond anything that any aircraft would be capable of handling, therefore the whole concept of the wing shaped cut-outs becomes a total farce. Picture this, under 30g deceleration, the 5 ton jet engines would exert 150 tons of force against the mounts holding the engines to the wings.
Yet forward momentum would have taken them right through the wall that was still mostly windows I/E window opeñings,not a curitain of impenetrable steel like you keep claiming Bob
good lord, conspiracy theorists will never give up, even if their conspiracies have been utterly annihilated time and time again.
The Gulf of Tonkin incident in this context is a Red Herring (do you understand that term?), and I will not follow your derail. But to address your very first sentence, I never stated that the Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened, I stated that there are many myths attached to it, just like 9/11. And just who are these nebulous 'elites'?
Note the following on how to make irrational assumptions: Well, I've been interested while listening to both sides of the argument for over ten years. As we all do. Straw man. You assume much without evidence, but that is what makes you a conspiracy theorist I suppose. The weight of the body of evidence is against 9/11 truth. Then you fell for the snake oil? So was I, but I still don't fall for illogical premises, why did you? No one teaches anyone what to think, or how to think in the education system; that is just another myth. I will believe what is supported by the evidence and critical thinking, not by what some amateur says on the internet. Unfounded assumption, and smacks of parroted rhetoric. Of all the arrogant and pompous BS I've ever heard. It's sad that you have such a weak case that you have to resort to personal attacks in order to make a point. And this is the low level of argument from the cranks in 9/11 truth. Congratulations! You have all the rhetoric and 'ad homs' down rote. Pathetic, coming from someone who calls himself a critical thinker. You know nothing of me and my abilities, and I doubt you would be able to debate me on the subject of 9/11 and win. It has been investigated repeatedly. Did you miss the investigations? FEMA? 9/11 Commission? FBI? NIST? inter alia. Argument from authority. Revise logical fallacies. Don't we all and we all have seen the video. And? When are you going to start? Because structural engineers make their visions a reality. If physics can be addressed without subjectivity, which I don't see coming from 9/11 truth. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Just a thought ..... if 2200 DOCTORS made a statement that obese people could reduce their weight by taking a specific course of action, would the world take notice? would there be open debate on the subject? Of course there would, however in the case of the questions about 9/11, the "debate" unfortunately turns into a farce of insults & accusations because there is a very serious psychological war going on right now. The battle is for the Hearts & Minds of citizens.
