To deliberately misinterpret the burden of proof has been a truther tactic for some time. It just absolves the claimant from demonstrating his or her point, and I don't fall for that pathetic tactic at all. There is ample proof the airliners existed and none to demonstrate that they didn't. The empirical evidence doesn't support your hypothesis, so there is something wrong with your hypothesis.
Really? Ok, for the fourth time: the manufacturer's maintenance records, the airlines' records, the insurance companies' records, the coroner's records, the physical evidence, the eyewitness testimony, the passengers' DNA and baggage, the Moussaoui trial evidence. And what have 9/11 truth got? Nothing but memes and libel. - - - Updated - - - That's probably the truther definition LOLOL. Empirical adjective: empirical based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. "they provided considerable empirical evidence to support their argument" synonyms: observed, seen, factual, actual, real, verifiable, first-hand
Poser trolls now days will tell you that you have to "disprove" the gubmint theories and prove any claims you make. Lets face it you have to prove everything while they sit on their ass and make snarky remarks. We all know that is fraud, but the nice thing is that everyone gets to see how bankrupt those who still defend the OCT have become as academics continues to prove the lies they post.
Since you guys wanna talk about planes..... wanna see something else that did not happen? When a gas tank collides with a structure like that it is instantly sliced open and the spray would have followed the steel before it snapped and when the tanks burst much of the fuel would have been blown backwards. you can see how the spray immediately fans out. and this is all it took to cut a plane wing off
Funny, that is exactly how I feel. The truther beats on, I post the evidence against and the truther keeps beating. If one makes a claim, one supports it. It's that simple in the real world, but 9/11 truth doesn't operate in the real world. It has its own fantasy land where anything goes. Ok, so now you have the burden of proof to support such an insane claim, but you won't, and you'll bloviate somehow to avoid proving your point. You are all the same. After all, it's the truther way, Maud,dib.
"What source? What are babbling about now? " Really? ........ BTW: that was a really interesting video.... Thanks for digging it up and posting.
Did you check out the bit about the mid-air collision of two aircraft and the consequences of said collision? This is clear evidence that an airliner wing is NOT going to slice through steel box columns. not to mention the previous material that I have posted in "physical science question"
So you don't know what Nukeboy was talking about either? Ok, so why the incredulity? As to your claim about the plane not being able to penetrate the façade, see F=ma.
and while you are at it look at A=F/M that is calculate the deceleration factor of an aircraft having to strike square-on a stationary object such as a skyscraper.
I don't have to as the planes obviously struck the towers. Please disprove my equation before you attempt to change the subject for the umpteenth time. You really aren't interested in answering questions are you? Why should I give someone like that my time? I'm just responding to your vapid rants and that is supremely dull. Come on, try to lift the level of debate above the usual truther sludge.
"I don't have to as the planes obviously struck the towers" Argument from incredulity ..... or? fact is that the evidence presented for there having been the alleged FLT175 striking the south tower, is the video ( the Evan Fairbanks video ... etc... ) and the video evidence doesn't line up with reality in that even if all the airliner had to do was to displace mass so as to create that nose entry hole, an airliner traveling at 540 mph and striking a stationary mass of only 2% of its own, will decelerate by >100 g that is for every ton of whatever the airliner was caring, there would be 100 tons of stress on the physical structure of the aircraft. and given that at the speed specified, the airliner would have 70 milliseconds between first contact of the nose and then any possibility of the wings touching the wall, there would be PLENTY of time for physical deformation of the aircraft and indeed total structural failure, that is the breaking up of the aircraft resulting in a mass of aircraft wreckage impacting the wall with no chance of producing that wing shaped gash.
No. Revise logical fallacies. You are asking me to ignore the empirical evidence in order to entertain your 'pet' theory, and that is irrational. Sorry, I'm not disposed toward the irrational and I don't entertain such nonsense such as no-planes. To wax colloquially, that is beyond retarded. There is much more than that as evidence as I've pointed out to you repeatedly, and that evidence disqualifies your false hypothesis. You need to get over that hurdle first before anyone can discuss your so called maths. Furthermore, please stop cherry picking my posts. I'm tired of repeating myself to you, and I will give up on you in short stride if you don't lift your debating style.
Oh please do, drop out of the debate, maybe I can have a discussion with somebody who actually gets the physics. This glorious empirical evidence includes the video of the alleged FLT175 penetrating the south tower, and this video is damning evidence of fraud. no matter what your incredulity about how it may have been done, the fact remains that no commercial airliner ever flown could have done what was alleged for "FLT175"
I get it. I get it that you're pushing insanity over reality. That much is clear. Have your brethren in the cult confirmed your so-called 'physics'? No? Why is that? Is it the rectal origin of your claim that frightens off your peers? That is a dishonest representation of the empirical evidence and you know it. Why do you need to be dishonest? Doesn't your inane claim stand up without it? But the fact remains that it did, and sticking your fingers in your ears is not a valid methodology. Please try to raise your level of debate above that of the playground. So, you ignore questions, and cherry pick posts to suit your responses, while ignoring all the evidence that is inconvenient to your wild fairy tale. And you expect me to take you seriously? You're Poeing.
Why should the video be accepted as a true representation of what should have been seen if an airliner really did impact the skyscraper wall? the fact is that the application of science to the problem shows clearly that the airliner should have experienced a jolt upon contact with the wall of the tower and the jolt would be of such intensity as to cause the break up of the aircraft, so no wing shaped gash .... oh well ....
Oh well. You'll get over it I suppose. You cannot disprove the empirical evidence so no-one will take you seriously. Me, I'm already bored with your empty and dishonest musings, so I'll leave it to someone else to bother with your mendacity. I've put you on 'ignore' for a while, as I'm tired of getting notifications only to find it is you with your selective and cherry picked garbage. Do understand that I'm highly intolerant of vapid and irrational arguments.
Obviously somebody hasn't read the OP or totally refuses to address the real issue here. oh well ......
The momentum of the planes, plus the thrust from the engines, slammed the wings into the buildings. The evidence is there in the images and no amount of denial is going to make that evidence disappear.
There is this little detail called the EQUAL AND OPPOSITE RE-ACTION principle and that is significant in this case, also do you really and truly believe that the engines were contributing to the forward motion of the airliner at the alleged speed of 540 mph and <1000 ft altitude? May I ask where you get your INFORMATION on this subject?
