Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
bill smith said:
Come on Grizzly.....we can't wait for ever.
Click to expand...

stateofgrace said:
NO.

How about you explaining them Bill ? How about you explaining why the plane would not cause the damage you stated and cause the building to sway.

Your anomalies, you explain them.

GO..................
Click to expand...

Come on Bill, where is your in depth explanation as why the plane would not do this ?

We can't wait forever.
 
bill smith said:
This s just the magic of plain common sense Grizzly.
Click to expand...
Common sense is a logical fallacy.


bill smith said:
So how about you explaining some of those anomalies I mention ?
Click to expand...
It may be a mystery people who do not have any education in basic physics, but to people who have even the mildest understanding there are no anomalies about a plane weighing 100 tons traveling at half the speed of sound having momentum, and releasing kinetic energy on something it hits.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Common sense is a logical fallacy.



It may be a mystery people who do not have any education in basic physics, but to people who have even the mildest understanding there are no anomalies about a plane weighing 100 tons traveling at half the speed of sound having momentum, and releasing kinetic energy on something it hits.
Click to expand...

THere are HUGE anomalies and well you know it. See if you can reeconcile this ? (below) I won't hold my breath and neither should anybody else.Failure to answer this question convincingly Grizzly may well mean that 9/11 was an inside job. Keep that in mind.

How could the plane put so much energy into causing the building to sway back and forth and still have gone through those columns in a flash like it did ?
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
THere are HUGE anomalies and well you know it. See if you can reeconcile this ? (below) I won't hold my breath and neither should anybody else.Failure to answer this question convincingly Grizzly may well mean that /11 was an inside job. Keep that in mind.

How could the plane put so much energy into causing the building to sway back and forth and still have gone through those columns in a flash like it did ?
Click to expand...

There are no anomolies. The only thing that you have showed is your total and complete ignorance. My eleven year old brother probably understands physics better than you. I guess you shouldn't feel too bad about it, you're probably only a few years older than him.
 
bill smith said:
THere are HUGE anomalies and well you know it. See if you can reeconcile this ? (below) I won't hold my breath and neither should anybody else.Failure to answer this question convincingly Grizzly may well mean that 9/11 was an inside job. Keep that in mind.
How could the plane put so much energy into causing the building to sway back and forth and still have gone through those columns in a flash like it did ?
Click to expand...

:dl:

You really are something special Bill, keep going pal.

Comedy gold.
 
dtugg said:
There are no anomolies. The only thing that you have showed is your total and complete ignorance. My eleven year old brother probably understands physics better than you. I guess you shouldn't feel too bad about it, you're probably only a few years older than him.
Click to expand...

do you really think that a plane that weighs 0.03% of the weight of the building it strikes one third of the way down from the top is going to make the building sway back and forth for four minutes as well as destroying all those massive steel columns ? Especially when the plane is made of aluminium ? Some of it as thin as 1mm ?
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
do you really think that a plane that weighs 0.03% of the weight of the building it strikes one third of the way down from the top is going to make the building sway back amd forth for four minutes as well as destroying all those massive steel columns ? Especially when the plane is made of aluminium ? Some of it as thin as 1mm ?
Click to expand...

So when are you going offer up your full explanation as to why it would not Bill ?
 
No planer BS, it is not possible for a person to be more ignorant than you are. I am completely serious.
 
bill, he who raises arguments from simple, ignorant incredulity to a new art form, forgets that if he thinks a plane could not have done what was observed, he needs to show why it could not have, because as we all know a plane was witnessed (by thousands) to do exactly what he says it cannot do.
 
bill smith said:
do you really think that a plane that weighs 0.03% of the weight of the building it strikes one third of the way down from the top is going to make the building sway back and forth for four minutes as well as destroying all those massive steel columns ? Especially when the plane is made of aluminium ? Some of it as thin as 1mm ?
Click to expand...
You need to take physics and stop posting pure stupidity.
 
bill smith said:
a wall of 14"x14" (comprised of 3/8" thick steel plate) perimeter box-columns spaced at 3'-4" on center and lying braced against 4" thick reinforced concrete floors at every 12 feet. While these may have been only 14'' wide they were also 14'' DEEP and lying braced against the reinforced concrete floors at 12 foot intervals. Ansolutely EXCELLENT shock absorbers as you can imagine. In crushing they should have stopped the plane dead on the outside of the building. Maybe the engines and landing gear would have penetrated but that is it.

Then the plane- 150 spread-out tons of of aluminium sheet as thin as 1mm in the fuselage and possiby 4mm in the wings. Spread out over a width of 125 feet and a length of 155feet. The only hard points were the two six-ton engines, the aluminium wing spars and the llanding gear. The fuselage had a diameter of 13 feet or one foot larger than the space between the floors.

Yet this somewhat spidery assembly of light aluminium is supposed to have bludgeoned it's way through the above described columns- 33 of them, wingtips and all. And all without losing as much as a gram of itself on the impact side of the building . Not only that- it went on to destroy up to ten of the truly massive core columns and partially carrying on to exit the building through perhaps a dozen more identical perimeter columns to the ones described above.

The impact is supposed to have caused the 500,000 ton building to sway back and forth for four minutes. Yet the plane itself weighed only one quarter of one half of one tenth of one percent the weight of the building.

So what do you think ? Does it add up?

http://nomoregames.net/presentation...al_August_07.ppt_files/slide0042_image031.png Wing rip
http://nomoregames.net/presentations/Madison_No_Planes_Final_August_07.ppt_files/slide0045_image034 Nose Cone
Click to expand...


You lied about watching Mackey's lecture, which explained how the planes entered the buildings. Stop spouting insane no-planer garbage and tell us what the NASA engineer got wrong.
 
bill smith said:
do you really think that a plane that weighs 0.03% of the weight of the building it strikes one third of the way down from the top is going to make the building sway back and forth for four minutes as well as destroying all those massive steel columns ? Especially when the plane is made of aluminium ? Some of it as thin as 1mm ?
Click to expand...


Explain why there isn't a structural engineer, aeronautical engineer, or physicist in the world who swallows your no-plane insanity. Stop posting idiotic lies and running away.
 
bill smith said:
THere are HUGE anomalies and well you know it. See if you can reeconcile this ? (below) I won't hold my breath and neither should anybody else.Failure to answer this question convincingly Grizzly may well mean that 9/11 was an inside job. Keep that in mind.

How could the plane put so much energy into causing the building to sway back and forth and still have gone through those columns in a flash like it did ?
Click to expand...




Mackey answered your bogus question very convincingly. There are no anomalies.
 
do you really think that a plane that weighs 0.03% of the weight of the building it strikes one third of the way down from the top is going to make the building sway back and forth for four minutes as well as destroying all those massive steel columns ? Especially when the plane is made of aluminium ? Some of it as thin as 1mm ?
Click to expand...

Yup...And there's thousands of video tapes and angles that show this.

You guys are really just like holocaust deniers...They look at a pile of thousands of bodies and say....well you can't PROVE that there we're more than just that pile of bodies. There's only photographic evidence of thousands of dead jews, not millions...

Every piece of twoofer evidence is not even close to admissable in ANY court of law...Not because the man is keeping you from presenting the evidence, it's because you have no evidence to present.

Think about it...with all the money pulled in from 9/11 truth, alex jones, david icke, Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin, Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas over the last NINE YEARS...I'd say you guys SHOULD have enough funds to get started on that reinvestigation...What's holding ya up? I haven't seen any of this so called "evidence" (*cough* news articles, crappy documentaries and pseudo scientific studies) admitted to a court of law....

The twoofers, just like anyone else in America have a right ot fare trial...so whats holding you guys back?

What's keeping you guys from claiming the Nobel Peace Prize in Physics for disproving the 139,000 architects and engineers that support the offiicial story as opposed to the 780 or so that don't?

You guys are sitting on what could be one of the biggest discoveries of one of the biggest scandals in world history and you've made no afforts other than make some bad movies and hold a few (very bad) lectures.

Put up or shut up...
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Common sense is a logical fallacy.



It may be a mystery people who do not have any education in basic physics, but to people who have even the mildest understanding there are no anomalies about a plane weighing 100 tons traveling at half the speed of sound having momentum, and releasing kinetic energy on something it hits.
Click to expand...

A 'contranym' is a word like 'sanction'.

Sanction,v.....def..[Give authority or permission to]

Yet the modern usage is most often assocoated with 'placing sanctions on' some country. Essentially denying them permission in one way or another.

So now we know what a 'logical fallacy'is and what a 'contranym' is. We all learn every day on the jref.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom