Most people don't even know about a third tower demolished on 9-11

Argument from incredulity. You supply no evidence to back any of your claims.

 

Please post the calculations that show the amount of force each box column would have sustained based on the speed x mass of the aircraft.

Really? Prove it.

Please post the calculations that show the amount of force each box column would have sustained based on the speed x mass of the aircraft or STOP MAKING UP CLAIMS YOU CANNOT SUPPORT OR KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.

 

May I also add the fact that it is alleged that gravity
was the ONLY motive force because the airliner crash & fire
was simply a trigger event and not the actual energy source for the "collapse"

 

There is a lot of "PROVE IT" going down
and I will simply state this fact, the mainstream media was the first
to assert the story that the events of 9/11/2001 were the product
of angry Arabs, and therefore the mainstream media has the burden of proof.
The silence of BOEING on this subject is very telling, the aircraft manufacturer
could put to rest the whole argument by producing computer simulations run
on their airframe that would prove beyond any doubt that a 757/767 type aircraft
could be flown at >500 mph @ < 1000 ft altitude. however not a peep out of BOEING.
the mainstream media has been at least complicit in a coverup, no reporter has
questioned the lack of an inventory of aircraft bits for any of the alleged airliners
crashed by terrorists. This only requires common sense, not pages of calculations,
The video(s) of the alleged "FLT175" penetrating the wall are all FAKE, and the reason
is simple, the airliner does not show deformation or deceleration in the process of
penetrating the wall. this is not rocket science! The max speed differential for the
aircraft to not be seen slowing down on 30 fps video ( NTSC standard ) is 125 mph
and if in aprox 150 ft of aircraft length, and 125 mph speed reduction that is >15 g
and at that sort of force, the aircraft would most certainly break apart. so hypothetically
the aircraft at the point that the wing(s) get involved and thus increase the resistance
dramatically, the aircraft would have massive breakage of the body and bits would be
all over the place. can you get this?

 

Obviously it DID penetrate the wall,something bob just can't seem to grasp...Must think his eyes are lying to him..

 

ONLY in the image on the video did "FLT175" actually penetrate the wall in the manner alleged by the official story. its an IMAGE, just like parlor magic done on TV.
wow man.... I saw it on TV, it must be real.....

 

people saw it from the ground....how was that possible. ATC saw it from New Jersey, how is that possible?

 

One was a radar 'blip' (same kind of false blips they used during their simultaneous 'simulation' of planes crashing into buildings. The 'people' part? Different people reported different thing. Some testimony was edited. Some was not.

 

weak explanation,boss

 

Eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable, and the only
video record shows something that constitutes a violation of
the laws of physics. go figure......

 

No violation of physics was shown or happened. It's impossible.

 

Just because you say its not a violation of the laws of physics,
doesn't make it so. What the video(s) show, is an alleged airliner
that penetrates the wall of the WTC south tower uniformly, while
keeping its shape and penetrates without any perceivable deceleration.
and its a given that deceleration must happen because the aircraft, if
it was truly a physical object penetrating the wall, would have to deal
with the resistance of the wall upon penetration. The deceleration
possible without showing up on 30 fps video, is aprox 125 mph,
therefore if the aircraft did decelerate by 125 mph, that would impose
28 g force upon the aircraft, and with that sort of stress, indeed asymmetrical stress, how can anyone expect for the aircraft to keep its shape outside of the tower? note that aircraft are a monocoque construction and by that, if the structure has been compromised in one location, say shredding the nose of the aircraft, what happens to the fuselage? structurally compromised and reacting to the asymmetrical forces in play, the aircraft would most probably break up before entering the building. also all of the luggage and cargo inside the aircraft would have broken any restraints it was attached to and shifted forward, creating additional asymmetrical stress to the fuselage. Also, the jet engines protrude ahead of the leading edge of the wing and so would be the first to contact the wall, that contact would cause more asymmetrical stress to the engine mounts and wing, and with that, the wing did not deflect, did not break, but all that is seen is penetration of the
wall with the "aircraft" keeping its shape.

Why should any aircraft be expected to be able to penetrate a wall
in the manner that FLT11 & FLT175 were alleged to have done?

Not only that, but the question has not been settled at all
and that is the possibility of flying a Boeing 757/767 type
aircraft at >100 over VNE for low altitude flying and have
anybody actually control the aircraft. Various "experts"
tell us that it either can or can not be done, but there is
no properly defined answer as yet.

 

People here have shown you why its not a violation, it just shows youv'e not read any of the info thats been shown to you. You just like to wave it away (well thats the way it looks to me).

 

obviously you haven't read any of my stuff .........

have a nice day

: )

 

All you've posted on here is your opinion not actual evidence. I've spent enough time reading forums like this and all truthers do is to make the argument go round and round in circles and never post anything of any substance.

Can I ask you one simple question?

 

are U going to ask something off topic?

 

No why would you like me to

 

There is no evidence of demolitions on WTC 1 WTC 2 or WTC7.

Most who are even remotely familiar with the conspiracy theory twoofer garbage are familiar with the collapse of WTC7.

Once again not one shred of evidence in the article just conspiracy theory BS

 

is it to be considered simply "conspiracy theory"
that the very same result, that is demolition of the
tower(s) and controlled demolition being something
that requires weeks of intense engineering and preparation,
and we get the same result from chaotic damage & fires,
for three steel framed skyscrapers, how is that done?

 

Simple: it wasn't the same result.

 

and exactly what differentiates "total collapse" from complete demolition?
where is it documented that some part of the WTC tower(s) survived?
& how much .... 1% .... 5% .... or?

 

Don't change your claim, now.

The collapse was not exactly the same characteristically as a cd.

 

Well hopefully, if 53,00 signatures get their ways, investigating the collapse on any building over 10 stories will be on the next ballot initiative. We'll see how they dodge that one.

 

I think that your particular 'conspiracy theory' belief in the nonsense you apparently believe is 'garbage' (no offense).

 

Fifty-three hundred, huh? When will the petition be submitted?