• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers?

Status
Not open for further replies.
einsteen said:
They had their lucky day, another near zero chance to add to the product of chances, this does not proof that they had that knowledge, they couldn't have that but it's at least suspicious that they choose this target
Click to expand...

No, it isn't, unless you start with your conclusion. From that point of view, anything is extremely unlikely. Ever studied statistics ?

2. Ok Archie, this was not meant to be seriously, it just popped in my mint and I added it
Click to expand...

9/11 is no laughing matter.
 
Christophera said:
I'm questioning your reasons for discussing unreasonably dummie. Without evidence dummie. Ilogocally dummie. Get the point dummie? Your whole reason for posting is f*cked up. The denial crew has a mental, emotional, spiritual problem contrary to higher human instinct. Reptilian behavior.

Darkness = unknowingness​
Click to expand...

Suicide by mod pending.
 
Belz... said:
...So what does it prove ?

Plane hits concrete... both explode.
Click to expand...


Or, from http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/video-gallery/index.html

The purpose of the test was to determine the impact force, versus time, due to the impact, of a complete F-4 Phantom — including both engines — onto a massive, essentially rigid reinforced concrete target (3.66 meters thick). Previous tests used F-4 engines at similar speeds. The test was not intended to demonstrate the performance (survivability) of any particular type of concrete structure to aircraft impact. The impact occurred at the nominal velocity of 215 meters per second (about 480 mph). The mass of the jet fuel was simulated by water; the effects of fire following such a collision was not a part of the test. The test established that the major impact force was from the engines. The test was performed by Sandia National Laboratories under terms of a contract with the Muto Institute of Structural Mechanics, Inc., of Tokyo. To view and download footage or still photos, click on the links or the images below.
Click to expand...
 
You won't argue that light is knowing?

Reasoning as to accounting for your intentions, how they relate to your instinctual understanding of the purpose of truth.
Click to expand...

Light is actually both a particle and wave, behaving like either in various situations. The speed of light, represented by the constant "c", is 299,792,458 m/s (299,792 km/s approximately).

knowing:

From Dictionary.com

know1  /noʊ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[noh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, knew, known, know‧ing, noun
–verb (used with object)
1. to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty: I know the situation fully.
2. to have established or fixed in the mind or memory: to know a poem by heart; Do you know the way to the park from here?
3. to be cognizant or aware of: I know it.
4. be acquainted with (a thing, place, person, etc.), as by sight, experience, or report: to know the mayor.
5. to understand from experience or attainment (usually fol. by how before an infinitive): to know how to make gingerbread.
6. to be able to distinguish, as one from another: to know right from wrong.
7. Archaic. to have sexual intercourse with.
–verb (used without object)
8. to have knowledge or clear and certain perception, as of fact or truth.
9. to be cognizant or aware, as of some fact, circumstance, or occurrence; have information, as about something.
–noun
10. the fact or state of knowing; knowledge.
—Idioms
11. know the ropes, Informal. to understand or be familiar with the particulars of a subject or business: He knew the ropes better than anyone else in politics.
12. in the know, possessing inside, secret, or special information.

The rest of your UNEEDED verbal diarrhea, is, i gather suppose to translate as follows...

"our instinctive understanding of the purpose of "truth" is affected by our motive?" My best guess at your verbal ejaculate...

TAM
 
A chance of harmony and sustainability. peace and strenght based in knowledge. Your race will suffer becaue your vision does not include a sense of justice, fairness and understanding of our natures.
Click to expand...

Am I wrong, or is he posturing himself as an alien here?





alsotheydidn'tfreefallkthankskbye
 
einsteen said:
I mean why not taking a nuclear reactor or something like that, if nobody knows what would happen they also wouldn't know. With the knowlegde that you only will kill a few people on the floor of impact why would you do it? If someone's purpose is to kill as many people as possible you wouldn't hit the WTC only to show that you are able to hijack a plane and show what you can do as a kind of status, you would hit a target to kill as many people as possible. They had their lucky day, another near zero chance to add to the product of chances, this does not proof that they had that knowledge, they couldn't have that but it's at least suspicious that they choose this target
Click to expand...
Don't forget that people with this same mentality bombed the towers several years before 9/11 in an effort to bring both towers down, but completely failed. Until 9/11, people thought this was an unrealistic goal.

They instead turned their focus to something more "spectacular." Something we wouldn't be able to ignore and laugh off so easily: giant planes flying into important buildings. Bin Laden himself said he was suprised the buildings collapsed.
bin Laden said:
We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all. (...Inaudible...) due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for.
Click to expand...
 
Pardalis said:
It's called a spam, Einsteen. :rolleyes:

ETA: let's predict Einsteen will come back to us in a few hours with a conclusion taken out of his ass that will state something like there couldn't have been a plane hitting the Pentagon.
Click to expand...
Can we take it easy on einsteen and not be negative about things he hasn't even done yet? The guy has been willing to listen and learn. He's also been humble enough to admit some of his own mistakes, and we all know that isn't an easy thing to do. Maybe we're not all on the same page yet, but einstein seems to be trying to apply some critical thinking to his own ideas. Let's give him a chance.
 
Last edited:
einsteen said:
With the knowlegde that you only will kill a few people on the floor of impact why would you do it? If someone's purpose is to kill as many people as possible you wouldn't hit the WTC only to show that you are able to hijack a plane and show what you can do as a kind of status, you would hit a target to kill as many people as possible.
Click to expand...

A few people? What, apart from the large number on the plane and the hundreds on each floor? That not enough?!? :jaw-dropp

Anyway, I think the point is not how many are killed but rather that it's a high-profile spectacular, as the IRA used to call them.
 
delphi_ote said:
Can we take it easy on einsteen and not be negative about things he hasn't even done yet? The guy has been willing to listen and learn. He's also been humble enough to admit some of his own mistakes, and we all know that isn't an easy thing to do. Maybe we're not all on the same page yet, but einstein still trying to apply some critical thinking to his own ideas. Let's give him a chance.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I've been a (very) occasional poster on the 9/11 threads but a keen follower. I think einsteen's link has some relevance to the Pentagon attack - i.e. the F4 in the video was "atomised" because it crashed into a concrete block at 480mph. We all know what the CTers have made of the lack of obvious wreckage from the 757 that crashed into the Pentagon (the walls of which are made of concrete) at a similar speed.

Also, I spotted a noteable comment down the page in "Comments and Responses"
Take an 80-lb. bag of cement and hoist it on your shoulder. No problem, right? Now drop one on your shoulder from 10 feet up. Use your time in the hospital to think about the difference between static and live loads...
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom