No Boeing 767 impacted the South Tower on 911

Discussion in '9/11' started by 7forever, Apr 3, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. n0spam

    n0spam New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2014
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    so you believe that the video of "FLT175" striking the south wall of the south tower,
    is a completely true & accurate picture of an airliner striking a skyscraper ..... right?
     
  2. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You have another video of an airliner striking a building at the same speed?

    Do tell
     
  3. n0spam

    n0spam New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2014
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You don't need it, there are plenty of high speed camera shots of
    bullets striking various targets at various speeds and under the conditions,
    that is aluminum plane hitting a skyscraper wall composed of steel columns,
    there should have been massive amount of splash back, stuff thrown backwards
    by the force of impact, however all that is seen is a little bit of dust raised around
    the point of impact, also the alleged aircraft doesn't slow down at all, the ONLY
    source of energy available to punch through the wall, is the KE of the aircraft,
    the mass would be a constant or if anything decreasing, so what did the aircraft
    have - VELOCITY, and it would have to give up a lot of velocity to punch through the wall,
    its a wonder that the tail of the aircraft wasn't sticking out of the hole, that is if it had been
    a real airliner. on hitting a wall such as that, the stresses on the aircraft would be huge,
    there is a video circulating on the web that shows an airliner breaking off its tail, and this
    on a hard landing, not hard enough to break the landing gear, but hard enough to break
    off the tail, in regards to the crash of FLT11 & FLT175, the entire aircraft miraculously
    stayed together as it penetrated a wall. and note that said penetration was NOT perfectly
    perpendicular to the plane of the wall.
     
  4. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wrong...what you HAD was a 100 or so ton MASS traveling at well over 500 MPH,the fact that it was aluminum has no bearing on the facts.

    in other words,how is it that basically an ice cube can dent autos and break widshields as hail...and they aren't traveling at anywere near the velocity that UA-175 was
     
  5. 7forever

    7forever Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    1,726
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    He saw the ball and described it as a chopper that disappeared.:omg:
     
  6. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    He saw a plane and described it as a plane.
     
  7. 7forever

    7forever Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    1,726
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    He saw NO plane. He described seeing a chopper disappear. That was the ball.

    I narrowed down the evidence to the lowest common denominator. It cannot be refuted or challenged, something Rob Balsamo nor Craig Ranke can claim, as their work allows for more excuses. This one eyewitness who would assure us today that there really was a plane, was left for whomever would take the time to listen to what he ultimately would confirm, that an unknown flying object was called a boeing 767. That is in fact the level of stupidity humanity has been issued by the government and mass media.

    Clifton Cloud saw the same ball floating toward the south tower that chopper 4 filmed along with three other broadcasts. All aired live except CBS- NY1, nbc, and wb11.

    "There was a police copter like near it...(I swear), I don't know what happen to him," This was Clifton's way of questioning whether he really saw a chopper.


    "Ya, the second one I'm tellin' ya..was...I didn't see a plane...I was watching it...I didn't see a plane.

    All I saw was a helicopter and I didn't see the helicopter anymore. It just looked like it exploded from the inside."

    "Ya, but I don't think it was a plane. No, because it happened like 20 minutes later. I think it was a bomb on the second building. I think they had that bomb in there and they were like alright let's maximize it. Hit it with a plane, and then hit the bomb."

    "There was a police copter like near it...I swear, I don't know what happen to him, but. But when the second one exploded there was a helicopter not too far away."

    "Ya, I tell you man, I saw it in slow motion, that second building just went boom, just exploded from the inside out, just like a movie, like a cheap movie which was really weird...it was like a 1970's Charleton Heston movie."

    "It was unbelievable, I mean it exploded from the inside, that second one."

    NIST FOIA: Clifton Cloud Clips 7-9 - YouTube

    [​IMG]

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNLVxWUbPDU
     
  8. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Of course he did. Look:

    Cloud: "I thought about um, where the plane had hit in the sixties floor where one of my companies largest client's is."

    The seventh word in that sentence describes what he saw. I don't know how I can make it any simpler for you.
     
  9. 7forever

    7forever Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    1,726
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    "Ya, the second one I'm tellin' ya..was...I didn't see a plane...I was watching it...I didn't see a plane."

    "All I saw was a helicopter and I didn't see the helicopter anymore. It just looked like it exploded from the inside."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_bttrlyx4k
     
  10. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Exactly, the second plane. As described.
     
  11. n0spam

    n0spam New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2014
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    when a hail stone hits a car, in addition to denting the car, the stuff splatters the ice shatters & flies.
    you seem to be under the impression that speed alone somehow magically imparts special properties to materials such that an aluminum aircraft can be expected to make a cartoon line cut-out ( wings & all ) in the side of a skyscraper. Think about this, in the applied physics world, it makes no difference what so ever
    if an array of steel columns had been propelled at "500 mph" against a stationary aircraft, or the other way round.
     
  12. n0spam

    n0spam New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2014
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is why I always say
    the ALLEGED AIRLINER .....

    To be precise
     
  13. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You seem to be under the impression that speed has no bearing on the kinetic energy of 100 tons of aluminum,steel and titanium

    And you do a disservice to those that died with your silly comment about 'cartoon line cut-outs'
     
  14. n0spam

    n0spam New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2014
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The truth hurts, LIES KILL

    Lets get real here, I did NOT say that KE is not a function of velocity & mass,
    what I did say is that speed does not impart any special qualities to any given material
    at 500 mph, aluminum is still aluminum. Fact is, if "FLT175" had been real, what
    would have prevented the outcome of the crash to be that the tail of the aircraft
    would be visible sticking out of the hole? or for that matter the tail break off & land
    in the street. The are a multitude of out-comes that do NOT include the aircraft
    disappearing inside the building as was done not once but twice. probabilities?
    or is that too difficult to contemplate?
     
  15. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    YES IT DOES!..and the plane is not entirely aluminum,the landing gear and the engines went through,And the rest of the plane was rigid enough to do the job
     
  16. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,119
    Likes Received:
    394
    Trophy Points:
    83
    thats a threatened witness

    - - - Updated - - -

    huh?

    its a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing tin can!
     
  17. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Odd how this 'aluminum aircraft's' wings are strong enough to hang 2 4-1/2 TON GE turbofans from them,as well as handle their thrust and vibration,but somehow were too delicate to punch into the towers..
     
  18. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,119
    Likes Received:
    394
    Trophy Points:
    83
    yes between the engine and the wheel assembly they are stronger.

    do you think that the engines are on the wing tips is that it? lol
     
  19. n0spam

    n0spam New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2014
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    For any given structure the direction of force is a factor
    in the case of airliner wings, yes it can support the aircraft,
    however forces applied to the leading edge of the wing cause damage
    have you see the pictures of bird impacts on wings?
     
  20. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Have you noticed it was damage to the exterior,and not the Internal structure?
     
  21. 7forever

    7forever Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    1,726
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    If you don't address what they said came over the bridge, then you're conceding that they were correct.

    Was that flight 175 coming over the Verrazano bridge or was that the ball that aired live three times?

    Varcadapane: He says to me, “As a matter of fact, do you see that target coming over the Verrazano Bridge.” I went over to the radar and looked at the radar. The Verrazano Bridge is depicted on the radar. And I looked over there and I saw the aircraft descending out of 4700 feet, 3600 feet, 2700 feet."

    Greg Callahan: And I could hear him calling on altitudes. “I have a target in sight, he’s descending rapidly.” And he said—“Look out to the southeast,” and the gentleman working ground control said, “Hey, who’s that by the Verrazano Bridge?” "And here comes a very large target descending rapidly, very fast." The skies over America - Dateline NBC | NBC News

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMlls8-X5pk
     
  22. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No 'ball' was filmed three times..just a case of your bad eyesight
     
  23. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    35,646
    Likes Received:
    8,998
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Humans miss things all the time. We're not video cameras with brains attached.

    [video=youtube;Ahg6qcgoay4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4[/video]
     
  24. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,119
    Likes Received:
    394
    Trophy Points:
    83
    thats cute, despite the fact that people standing around simply watching without someone telling them what to look at is entirely different than your commentator directing us and telling us to watch a complex series of movements, none of which was the condition at the site that day, yeh I got the white passes, the black passes and seen the goof but didnt not have time to pay attention since I was concentrating on the passes of the teams as the commentator misdirected us to do. (and I got them correct)

    So what does that make me superhuman?
     
  25. LogicallyYours

    LogicallyYours New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,233
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Still pitching your "no-Plane" BULSH?

    Not only are you unable to present and solid (credible) evidence for your BULSH...You still cannot account for all the eye-witness statements and planes added to all those independent videos and photos in the correct focus, saturation, angle, speed and size...most of which appeared on sites like YouTube within days.

    Who gathered up all those videos and photos? Why aren't owners of those videos and photos exposing the hoax?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page