Discussion in '9/11' started by 7forever, Apr 3, 2013.
My mind isn't closed,homer,just made up
Oh please, it's quite closed.
Oh please,you don't know my mind
When one defends lies at all costs, and avoids all and any contrary evidence to the lies, one's mind is quite closed.
You have YET to prove any lies told on 9/11...Also you have YET to present any evidence,other than 'it smells fishy'
You refuse to consider anything other than the Kean commission's lies, even when they're presented directly.
You have yet to present any, son.
Present some lies first,boss.
Pick any paragraph of the Kean propaganda. You'll find plenty there.
Can't provide evidence, can you?
Just keep throwing up words to earn your check, Boss.
No,boss YOU present them.
You keep using that word..I do not think it means what you think it means
The probabilities are against any commercial airliner doing what
was alleged to have been done on 9/11/2001.
Can you roll snake-eyes 4 times in a row?
the alleged airliner hits to the WTC towers were remarkable
because of several features, one of these features being that
the wings stayed with the aircraft and penetrated along with
the body of the aircraft. This is rather special because upon
contacting the wall, the airliner would have experienced >10 g
deceleration forces and no airliner is built to stay together given
that level of stress, why did not only a wing stay with the aircraft,
but 4 times over, two wings for two aircraft, a most improbable
event, but it was said to have happened, but can we trust the "news".
many other aircraft crashes had broken off wings, and note my
graphic in the OP of "RE: no planes" the most likely thing to happen
would be for the wings to break off.
I can't believe the truthers are still on this kick. They throw a ball against the wall and expect airplanes to react the same. No knowledge of the building, no knowledge of the aircraft, no knowledge of physics but by golly, they sure cannot believe what was filmed, what people saw, what happened basically.
Where did you get that? I have never compared the events of 9/11
to throwing a ball against a wall.... why did you say that?
That is effectively your argument. You don't understand something so it must not exist.
I understand more than you give credit for, did you see my explanation
as to why the wings should have broken off "RE: no planes"
It is apparent you have very little knowledge of aircraft construction or construction of the buildings, or physics for that matter so it is debatable what you 'understand'.
so let me get this straight,
an aircraft undergoing >10g deceleration, is expected
to keep its wings attached and indeed keep its shape
before being shredded by entry into the WTC tower. (?)
is that what you believe?
Interpreting the Boeing-767 Deceleration
During Impact with the WTC Tower
Quote from the linked document:
"Since the front of the aircraft decelerates faster than the tail due to impact, "
OK now, we have a physical object ( the aircraft ) that is alleged to have
part of it decelerating more than another part, where is the mass breakage
of the aircraft then?
Don't just take somebodies word for what is going down,
look at the physical reality that is being described and
ask if it aligns with the physical world as you know it.
You mean look at your interpretation of what you think should happen. I don't know if you noticed but the mass breakage happened pretty spectacularly.
(click on the pix to see it better)
None at all...You and the no plane crowd failed to make your case.
Separate names with a comma.