in your world I am sure of it. in the real world well thats another story that was not an explanation, try again. cite the location of all water pipes and how the plane took all of them out. LOL then tell us what you are smoking
but you have absolutely no evidence of that and in fact I posted umpteen times that pic of water running down the stairs because survivors reported that the springklers were working
Why should he provide a link? For you to say it's a kook site, or some other derogatory statement? What would be the point?
I don't let uneducated amateurs send me hunting for unicorn poo. - - - Updated - - - I have no reason to believe that they exist.
Only that you know sod all about it. Some of your statements, maybe most of them, are in conflict with reality. Now, produce some of the names of people who saw the sprinklers working above the impact.
they are on a utube video and I do not get paid to sit and watch thousands of videos for your convenience, same deal I give everyone else, if I run across it I will post it, other tfb. no the problem is that reality is entirely different than the fraud you people are spinning out here.
I just read this entire thread, and have to say, as an architect the amount of mis-information, cherry picked facts, and correlation/causation/assumptions being made to arrive at the conclusions is simply wrong on all levels.
Until you do, I shall consider you to be talking through your trousers again. Looks like earthquake damage. What has it to do with 9/11?
That's a clear example of a 747 hitting a building and bouncing off. It literally knocked a piece of the building back.
No, there were no planes involved NAB. Get the story straight, can't you see the windows are blown out? It's obvious CD. It's called the Shill Handbook, NAB. Read it.
I'm confused. I thought a plane couldn't penetrate a building, but then I hear there is no plane in the first place. Or were there no planes but they were CGI'ed in later, but does that mean the CGI planes could pentrate the building? Were the buildings CD after a CGI plane crashed into it or was the CD actually CGI and there weren't actually buildings in the first place? The multitude of storylines would make George RR Martin pull his hair out in frustration.
Earthquake damage,Mexico City,9/19/85 ZERO plane involvement. Koko is just playing with himself now..
well you are as usual wrong. it is possible but not likely that a whole plane can penetrate a building. buildings do not usually explode first to welcome planes home. and then explosions dont usually explode SUCKing inward either. how about that explosive welcoming committee? how much of "a plane" is "a plane"? the nosecone? we also know that they can go all the way through a building dont we.
well after dropping down and caving in the floors it should have just pancaked all the way down! instead it just stopped. it should have looked like this then came down. those guys dont know how to design a building.
and further more Mr NAB, had you been paying attention from other threads you would see that a plane may or may not penetrate an object. since that is the case, the presumption you propose, that is to ass ume that any time a plane strikes something, that penetration is a prerequisite as matter of course is totally (*)(*)(*)(*)ing preposterous! Its "depends" on many factors, that of course troughers would prefer NOT to talk about while they spin their deceitful web of pretense that all planes always fully penetrate in all cases. No one with fully functional sensibilities should give any credence what so ever that the whole plane wings tail et al would go in except under "extreme" circumstances which if course the drama queens here are more than happy to provide that comedy show as well. So if you can show why the whole plane would go in and why the building exploded prior to the plane parts impacting it I might even listen. There is a reason lets see if you can figger it out.
Why? How was the top knocked over? You should, of ocurse, realize that the building in your example is of a more standard construction with a lattice of columns and griders to arrest the collpase. - - - Updated - - - Why? How was the top knocked over? You should, of ocurse, realize that the building in your example is of a more standard construction with a lattice of columns and griders to arrest the collpase.
We all know that they do not penetrate mountains or concrete the thickness of a nuclear facility shielding wall. They also have a little trouble piercing steel encased in concrete, but occassionaly do it. Even artillery rounds have some trouble piercing the hull of a ship like the Sterett. A Zero is a very light aircraft, compared to a 757, or even a Betty. Not a bit of it. We are perfectly willing to discuss the differences between the Sterett and the Hunsdale, between a Zero and a Betty and a B-25 and a 757, or between the Empire State Building, the Pentagon and the WTC. That came out of somebody's underwear.
It's really unsurprising that you thought I was addressing the wide variety of stupidity proposed by false flaggots in a serious manner. Just shows how far up your own posterior you've buried your head.
