Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories!

Discussion in '9/11' started by rickmullenax, Apr 14, 2014.

  1. n0spam

    n0spam New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2014
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Is the 11 frames of video, "speculation" or hard evidence,
    doesn't matter what your opinion is, there is a factor of what it is independent of opinion.
     
  2. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What is it evidence of? A passenger jet crashing into the World Trade Center.
     
  3. n0spam

    n0spam New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2014
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    to address the full bit here
    the alleged aircraft travels its own length in 11 frames of video while in AIR,
    and also while penetrating a wall, again in 11 frames of video ..... how is that done?

    Note that it is a standard bit of high school science
    to measure the speed of a car with known distance markers on the road
    and the number of frames traveled between said distance markers gives
    an indication of the speed of the vehicle.

    So the obvious conclusion is that the "aircraft" did not slow down at all
    upon contact with the WTC tower wall. & I ask, exactly how is that accomplished?
     
  4. jcarlilesiu

    jcarlilesiu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    16,671
    Likes Received:
    2,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL

    So we have to go get statements from thousands of people who witnessed the event. .. otherwise your theory stands up?

    How about you need to track down thousands of people who question the official report?

    That would be more logical. That isn't how CTers worth though.
     
  5. jcarlilesiu

    jcarlilesiu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    16,671
    Likes Received:
    2,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You think that the rear part of the plane will decelerate because the front is making impact?

    Want me to show you videos of cars hitting embankments? at extremely high speeds, the videos will look the same.
     
  6. jcarlilesiu

    jcarlilesiu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    16,671
    Likes Received:
    2,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL

    No the spin.

    Post the proof that there were explosives involved?
     
  7. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    F=MA

    The force of the aircraft was such that there was no noticeable deceleration in the < second it took to penetrate the outer wall.
     
  8. n0spam

    n0spam New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2014
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Truth isn't a matter of consensus its a matter of examining the evidence.

    - - - Updated - - -

    F=MA, where is the ACCELERATION ( or possibly DECELERATION )?
    If the aircraft penetrated the wall at a constant velocity, how can you cite "F=MA"

    - - - Updated - - -

    and exactly WHY should we be discussing "explosives"?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Please do reference your videos of car crashes & we can discuss how it relates
    to the alleged "FLT175" ..... & Thank U very much.
     
  9. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
  10. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    What caused the towers to fall at 64% of g? Why didn't the towers fall at freefall? I suspect you'll hide from these questions yet again as you have no desire to learn. You want to keep living your conspiracy fantasy.
     
  11. n0spam

    n0spam New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2014
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You seem to be operating under the assumption that explosives must = free fall.
    not so, depending on the application of explosives, the number, type & location
    of charges, the rate of descent can be anything that the engineers want.
     
  12. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Since there is no evidence of explosives, this point is moot.
     
  13. Stndown

    Stndown Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    889
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is plenty of evidence but, you simply refuse to acknowledge it. Why? How come only pro official things are even talked about? The point is far from moot.
     
  14. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Present evidence of explosives, then. Since there is plenty, show us some.
     
  15. n0spam

    n0spam New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2014
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The uniformity & completeness of destruction is clearly a smoking gun.
    even if you don't like it, its still a smoking gun.
     
  16. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Opinion is not evidence.

    Do you have any evidence?
     
  17. n0spam

    n0spam New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2014
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    evidence is evidence with
    or without your interpretation of it.
     
  18. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No,it's NOT...

    - - - Updated - - -

    Hard to interpret ZERO evidence,which is what you've offered
     
  19. n0spam

    n0spam New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2014
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thank you for your opinion..........
     
  20. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    you're still dodging and not posting evidence. tsk.

    I knew you had none.
     
  21. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's a fact,not opinion
     
  22. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    :eekeyes:

    Not MY assumption n0spam. That's been the mantra for truthers for almost 13 years now! Where have you been? Truthers say that free fall = explosives.

    You seem to disagree.

    You're digging yourself into a hole no n0spam. I'll bet you haven't thought this through have you? Please explain how the rate of descent of the upper section of WTC1 and WTC2 was controlled by explosives to fall at 64% of g like you have claimed.

    This ought to be good.
     
  23. n0spam

    n0spam New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2014
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    First of all, the strictly "gravity powered" collapse
    of WTC 1, 2 would have had to include as a distinct possibility
    the result, that is the tower(s) being seriously damaged, but not destroyed
    I would bet on ANYTHING other than complete destruction, before I would
    put my $ on complete destruction.

    WHY should any structure just pulverize itself as did the towers?
     
  24. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    They didn't pulverize themselves. Why can't you get this straight? You are exaggerating. One more time. The upper sections came down upon the first upper floor of the lower section. The floor wasn't enough to resist the load of the descending upper section, so it sheared the floor from the perimeter and core columns. As the mass descending it continued to shear each floor. The perimeter columns were then pushed outward by the descending mass and fell in a parabolic trajectory and ended up the way you see them laid out. There is proof that the mass sheared the floor because we see remnants of the core without floors, which collapsed a short time later.
     
  25. Stndown

    Stndown Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    889
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    When the evidence that proves to flawed corrupt illogical and incomplete, and when that evidence disproves itself on its own, then that evidence needs to be rejected.
     

Share This Page