- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,079
- Reaction score
- 11,815
- Points
- 113
It's not possible...
- Thread starter wig
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,601
- Reaction score
- 29,976
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
Here is a gif showing the plane slamming into the building and exploding:
Once again, what do you think happened? The plane did NOT penetrate the building? The plane was "hardened" to penetrate the building, with no resulting increase in weight? That the front end, though hardened, seems to have crumpled? That the "hardened" plane approach failed but the plot was nonetheless successful? Better lucky than good?
Once again, what do you think happened? The plane did NOT penetrate the building? The plane was "hardened" to penetrate the building, with no resulting increase in weight? That the front end, though hardened, seems to have crumpled? That the "hardened" plane approach failed but the plot was nonetheless successful? Better lucky than good?
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,079
- Reaction score
- 11,815
- Points
- 113
Here is a gif showing the plane slamming into the building and exploding:
Once again, what do you think happened? The plane did NOT penetrate the building? The plane was "hardened" to penetrate the building, with no resulting increase in weight? That the front end, though hardened, seems to have crumpled? That the "hardened" plane approach failed but the plot was nonetheless successful? Better lucky than good?
f=mv
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,583
- Reaction score
- 5,866
- Points
- 113
I'm pretty sure that every large building fire ever was caused by the US government. I will leave the motive up to smarter people.
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2014
- Messages
- 10,999
- Reaction score
- 13,092
- Points
- 113
Ok first off, I never once said airplanes didn't hit the towers or that those airplanes didn't do some damage to the two towers they hit.
What I'm suggesting is that the likelihood that 3 towers fell in perfect symmetrical fashion, 2 of them within 90 minutes of their being hit and a 3rd within 7 hours of the other two being hit is not believable. IF the towers were going to fall, they would have toppled toward the area they had been weakened. THAT makes sense. THAT is logical.
Why the pilots didn't follow their standard hijack protocols? Why the unusual put options on American and United before the attack? Why does the Pentagon have no aerial defense system in place? Why do they not even have cameras? Why was there molten metal in the craters below the towers? We know it didn't get hot enough the melt the steel, and yet there was molten metal below the towers... Where did that come from? Why did so many witnesses report hearing explosions even before the planes struck the towers?
Why are we spending so much money on defense and airport security if 16 guys with box cutters can so easily thwart our military and our FAA by simply turning off the transponders on some commercial airliners? What on earth is the point?
Seriously? What keeps these guys from flying in from Europe and refueling in-flight. All they'd have to do is turn off their transponders before international waters and we'd never even see them. They could send a dozen planes and hit every target before the FAA even knew what was going on.
What I'm suggesting is that the likelihood that 3 towers fell in perfect symmetrical fashion, 2 of them within 90 minutes of their being hit and a 3rd within 7 hours of the other two being hit is not believable. IF the towers were going to fall, they would have toppled toward the area they had been weakened. THAT makes sense. THAT is logical.
Why the pilots didn't follow their standard hijack protocols? Why the unusual put options on American and United before the attack? Why does the Pentagon have no aerial defense system in place? Why do they not even have cameras? Why was there molten metal in the craters below the towers? We know it didn't get hot enough the melt the steel, and yet there was molten metal below the towers... Where did that come from? Why did so many witnesses report hearing explosions even before the planes struck the towers?
Why are we spending so much money on defense and airport security if 16 guys with box cutters can so easily thwart our military and our FAA by simply turning off the transponders on some commercial airliners? What on earth is the point?
Seriously? What keeps these guys from flying in from Europe and refueling in-flight. All they'd have to do is turn off their transponders before international waters and we'd never even see them. They could send a dozen planes and hit every target before the FAA even knew what was going on.
have you flown lately, wig?
tsa does body scans and x-rays to help alleviate the ease of which to smuggle contraband such as box cutters onto airplanes. admittedly, they do a piss poor job, but steps are there.
as for the way the buildings fell, would it be possible that the exterior steel lattice helped keep the buildings from toppling over, and thus falling down? also, wouldnt that metal and the rest of the metal also still be burning after the fall?
when this happened we were unable to use military force - such as F16s - inside the country. now, i'm unsure.
and radar picks up planes without transponders.
tsa does body scans and x-rays to help alleviate the ease of which to smuggle contraband such as box cutters onto airplanes. admittedly, they do a piss poor job, but steps are there.
as for the way the buildings fell, would it be possible that the exterior steel lattice helped keep the buildings from toppling over, and thus falling down? also, wouldnt that metal and the rest of the metal also still be burning after the fall?
when this happened we were unable to use military force - such as F16s - inside the country. now, i'm unsure.
and radar picks up planes without transponders.
To clarify: My "Like" was for the blunt, factual response. Not that the pilots got their throats cut.
No prob, I figured that.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
What I'm suggesting is that the likelihood that 3 towers fell in perfect symmetrical fashion, 2 of them within 90 minutes of their being hit and a 3rd within 7 hours of the other two being hit is not believable.
complete bullshit - they fell when they fell due to differing damage - nothing "symmetrical" at all about it except your prejudice to reality
IF the towers were going to fall, they would have toppled toward the area they had been weakened. THAT makes sense. THAT is logical.
Totally wrong, your 'logic' is just ignorance of reality - standard construction was not used like in reinforced concrete steel structures - they wouldn't just tip over like your little log cabin building sets
As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made.
First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself.
Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity.
To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html
Why the pilots didn't follow their standard hijack protocols?
'Standard protocol' for airline hijackings AT THAT TIME was to follow the instructions of the hijackers and land where they were told.
NOT TO SOUND AN ALARM, NOT TO RESIST, NOT TO LOCK THEM OUT, NOT TO FIGHT BACK - that was the policy
until they got their throats cut
Why does the Pentagon have no aerial defense system in place? Why do they not even have cameras?
Of course the military had defenses in place in 2003 - FOR ATTACKS COMING FROM OUTSIDE the US, from off our coasts, over the north pole, from OVERSEAS
Why why why why why - because it has NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE
CAMERAS in the sky? WTF? Cameras in fighter jets? WTF?
TOO MANY VIDEO GAMES!
Yes - those terrorists did the unthinkable and pulled it off.
Just accept reality, they did it
Similar threads
