911 - Was Flight 77 an invisible inferno?

Shortly after 9/11, AA Flt 587 entered the wake turbulence of another jet and the turbulence knocked it so far off course that it wound up in pieces around Long Island. You really do need to understand this phenomenon before the picture of the aircraft about to strike the Pentagon makes any sense. But I have no time to teach someone so obviously intent on not learning.

 

that is entire different, the real problem here is why are you trying to play expert regarding things you know little to nothing about?

 

Wrong! I am retired military, with fire fighting and construction experience and not a bit of what you are posting makes sense.

Now, suppose you tell me what besides a 757 could do the damage observed at the Pentagon.

 

so you know nothing about demolitions got it.

 

Nowe you are just blathering. You cannot demonstrate how your theory could possibly be true, so you just shriek louder that it is.

How about a diagram of how those marks on the walls could be made with HE?

 

anyone who does not recognize (*)(*)(*)(*) that is so obvious even a dumb layman can see not only lacks working knowledge but the ability to think their way through a problem and come up with correct answers. The only reason I cannot demonstrate anything on this board is not because its not factually correct but certain people are obtuse and obstinate in even when their posts causes them incredible embarrassment.

 

Fake physicist, heal thyself

 

that we can do right here and now, make your case and lets rock.

 

It does not work that way. Your claim is counter-intuitive, so the burden of proof is on you.

You have to show how anything other than aircraft of the size of those identified in the official narrative could have made the marks observed at four locations.

 

little c4 will make those marks too.

 

Bull (*)(*)(*)(*). Try again.

 

I dont see demolition in your resume

 

Nor in yours. You do have a huge deficit of grammar, however.

 

Actually in your case it seems like a "dumb layman" sees things that are not obvious to the experts.

 

the only people who "get it" [what I say] are the experts. LMAOI

 

You have exactly zero experts backing your claims.

 

But he has a bunch of "dumb layman" to back him up!

 

when I want to argue with dumb laymen with big heads I come here. LMAO

you can always tell a dumb lay man who is a trougher.

fire is hot
day lit match
hot weakens steel
bewding faw down

Nist said so

Praise be to NIST Lord God on High!
Unbelievers, the infidels be damned!

 

Most of my knowledge of demolitions comes from watching and taking pictures while my unit was blowing stuff up for training at Ft. Campbell. I did get a chance to watch CDI at work one time in Seattle.

You have not shown me anything consistant with anything I observed there

Now, would you care to show us how you think that HE could have been used to do the damage seen at the Pentagon?

 

what kind of a question is that?

light the fuse and bigga badda boom lol

 

Lit Fuses aren't used for controlled demolition.

 

try to keep up eh. cd is not used to damage, but to destroy a building DUH

thanks for your contribution.

 

And it does not use lit fuses. CD was not present on 9/11.

 

Plus CD IS used to damage a building to structural failure

Gravity actually destroys it.

 

prove it!!!!!

lmao

- - - Updated - - -

not if you use a nuke

ever notice how troughers are totally in the micro-box thinkers