RE: No Planes

Discussion in '9/11' started by genericBob, Jun 14, 2014.

  1. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    FLT11-175.jpg

    This illustrates what the aircraft would look like as it
    penetrated the tower wall, note that the wing tips,
    once separated from the body of the aircraft would
    not have the KE to penetrate the wall, nor would it
    be at all probable that the wing tip should penetrate,
    because it would be free to rotate and thus the least
    likely scenario would be for the wing tip to penetrate.
    However the official story states that on 9/11/2001
    for a total of 4 instances of this action, the wing tips
    consistently penetrated the WTC wall(s). go figure.
     
  2. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yet they didn't break off
     
  3. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    so you support the official story because?
    Just the fact of seeing the gashes in the sides of the WTC
    towers doesn't in any way explain how said gashes got there.
     
  4. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I support it because it's true

    And a 757 flew into each of the towers.

    That's how
     
  5. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Lack of physical evidence that any aircraft crashed into
    either tower, the facts of the crash & alleged penetration
    of the building by (?) laws of physics + logic and reason
    ( Probability ) All of the science points to an alternate explanation
    that does not include hijacked airliners.

    Why should the wing tips have penetrated given the conditions
    that I have outlined in my original post? and not only once, but
    four times the same sort of extraordinary act was done, how
    do you account for that?
     
  6. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A lie,there was ample evidence a 767 hit each of the towers
     
  7. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Given that standard procedure in any aircraft crash is to collect up the
    aircraft bits and inventory what they have and check for serial numbered
    parts to verify the maintenance history of the aircraft in question, exactly
    what was done on 9/11/2001? What value is it to have somebody point
    to a piece of aluminum and say "that is an aircraft bit, and its from FLT11
    because it could be from no other" when in fact the proper way to know
    what parts are what, is to take everything back to a hanger where the
    parts are laid out in order so as to see how much of the aircraft can be
    accounted for. In the case of the airliners alleged to have been hijacked
    and crashed on 9/11/2001 no organized accounting has been done, or
    if any has been done, it has not been made public, why the secrecy if
    such an accounting has been done? In a crash scene where a hijackers
    passport was recovered but the flight recorders of FLT11 & FLT175 were
    not, whats up with that? This whole thing is a cover-up, a huge white-wash job.
     
  8. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There are no 'serial numberd parts',other than Boeing part numbers,which were plentiful.
    If you want the maintenace history,all you need to do is look at the maintenance logs as required by the FAA.

    Try again.
     
  9. EggKiller

    EggKiller Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2012
    Messages:
    6,650
    Likes Received:
    483
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Were the wing tips traveling at a slower speed than the rest of the plane?
     
  10. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So if as you state, none of the parts in an airliner have unique serial numbers
    this then makes it OK for there to be a total lack of any accounting for the parts?
    That is what means was used to determine if any given bit of aluminum was a
    part of FLT11 or FLT175 or was just happened to be a scrap of metal that was
    at the site? I'm serious, what physical evidence of there having been any of the
    alleged hijacked airliners is there? where is it?
     
  11. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Did you look at the picture,? the wing tips would have arrived at the wall
    later than the rest of the wing because of the design of said wing.
    and after the penetration event ( that BTW would include the wing
    encountering two 4" thick steel reinforced concrete decks edge on )
    had progressed to the point just before the wing tips were to contact
    the wall, the rest of the wing would have been eroded away, therefore
    no support at all for the wing tip, the smaller mass would have smaller
    KE and thus insufficient energy to penetrate the wall, and even more than
    that, the probability of the wing tip penetrating the wall is very small because
    there are so many other out-comes not only possible but more probable than
    to have the wing tip penetrate and disappear inside the building.
     
  12. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They found bits of it all over the WTC site and surrounding blocks,If it was like flight 93,the 'bits' were turned over to the airlines

    Besides,what other planes could they be,It's not like they had a whole raft of hijacked jets other than the 4
     
  13. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Given the outrageous lack of documentation in this area, the alleged airliner
    parts could be a half ton to a ton of material, that may or may not properly
    match up with what should have been airliner wreckage, however without
    any proper accounting for it, how does anyone know for certain that the
    "wreckage" was actually a load of scrap bits that had been planted as
    evidence to convince people that an airliner had been used as a weapon?
    I'm very serious here, and to address the "turned over to the airlines"
    claim, I'm very skeptical of that because in the case of any criminal investigation,
    all sorts of privately owned property is kept by the authorities as evidence in
    their on-going investigation, so it doesn't make sense to simply ship everything
    back to the airlines.

    My question stands, where is the accounting for the aircraft bits?
    if there ever was an airliner crashed at the WTC, or PENTAGON or Shanksville,
    where is the accounting for the airliner? Is it to be assumed that anything
    that even resembles an aircraft part was simply packed up and shipped back
    to the airline without some sort of inventory of what they had?

    The potential for fraud here is enormous, and the evidence does NOT
    support any such claim of there having been hijacked airliners used as
    weapons. WHY is it that the video evidence of "FLT175" clearly shows
    something that if taken at the word of the mainstream media, constitutes
    a violation of the laws of physics and NO the argument
    " OH but it was going S0000 FAST " is not valid.
     
  14. EggKiller

    EggKiller Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2012
    Messages:
    6,650
    Likes Received:
    483
    Trophy Points:
    83
    How do you know what the tips came in contact with?
    They were traveling at the same speed as the plane. Therefor they had the same KE as any aluminum skin with various structural entities behind them.
    Have you considered the softest part of the wing tips would have folded backwards yet still had sufficient forward momentum to enter the building through the hole created by the wings to which it was attached?
    Have you considered they may have sheared off and dropped to the street like crumpled beer cans and then covered by tons of rubble and fire after the collapse?
    You seem to be musing these problems with a flat one dimensional thought process.
     
  15. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    89,271
    Likes Received:
    12,700
    Trophy Points:
    113
    like Holocaust Deniers, 9-11 Deniers are notorious for refusing to accept any amount of evidence, regardless of how convincing, that planes crashed into WTC 1 & 2 and the buildings came down due to impact damage, fire damage, weakened steel, and gravity.
     
  16. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    KE is a function of Velocity and Mass, therefore at the time the wing tips became
    disconnected from the rest of the aircraft, the ONLY mass to consider would be
    that of the wing tip independent of anything else.

    It was alleged that the wing tips made their own bit of the gash
    making the gash in the side of the WTC full length of the wingspan
    of the aircraft, also you say that the wing tips could have broken off
    and fallen to the street, but then that does not account for the full
    length gash in the side of the tower. Also, upon excavation of Ground Zero,
    wouldn't concentration of aluminum bits be noticed and cataloged as
    aircraft parts and therefore add to the accounting for the aircraft?
    however since no real accounting for the aircraft exists, why bother, right?
     
  17. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Please be so kind as to provide a link to DOCUMENTATION
    of the aircraft bits such as to prove that FLT11, FLT175, FLT77 & FLT93
    indeed crashed in the locations alleged by the mainstream media.
     
  18. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    89,271
    Likes Received:
    12,700
    Trophy Points:
    113
    so you haven't seen any of the photos of the plane wreckage found around Ground Zero?

    sounds like you haven't been doing very much research into 9-11.
     
  19. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Humor me, post link(s) to the evidence.
     
  20. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    89,271
    Likes Received:
    12,700
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I shall do no such thing. If you haven't seen the photos by now, I have zero interest in enabling your denial.

    Its 2014 bro, your side lost a long time ago.
     
  21. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So in other words, you got nothing, if there was proof of there
    having been airliners crashed at the various sites, it would be
    at somebodies finger-tips and they would be ready to post it
    on any forum that requested it, however the fact is that there
    is insufficient evidence to prove airliners crashed at the various sites at all.
     
  22. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Would it do any good?
     
  23. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Again, there isn't any evidence, because if there had been evidence,
    you would have been quick to post a link and say there, I told you so,
    but the evidence doesn't exist. 9/11/2001 was a huge fraud.
     
  24. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh there's evidence,You just seem to be too stubborn or deluded to see it,And a Ron said,If you haven't seen the pictures in 12 years of spouting your truther nonsense,I'm not going to enable you.
     
  25. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The last time I asked for proof, I was given a link to pix of a dumpster with a mass of rubble, and this was allegedly an accounting for "FLT93" REALLY? this is an accounting? how does anyone know
    if the bottom layer of the dumpster isn't filled-in with scrap that isn't aircraft bits, rocks, dirt ( etc... ) from the crash site and therefore the estimate of having recovered 90% of the airliner is totally bogus.

    I'm talking about an inventory of aircraft bits, like is done for any other airliner crash.
    The opposition can not produce any documented accounting for the aircraft bits,
    because the airliners are a FRAUD.
     

Share This Page