Warring No planer factions- Shansksville and Pentagon no-planers vs WTC no planers

alienentity said:
Ahem..that's been done

'Mete Sozen, Purdue's Kettlehut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering and a principal investigator on the simulation project, says the researchers worked for years and used the best computing resources available to recreate the event.
Click to expand...

I think it's a very crude simulation that doesn't reflect the actual physics involved in such impact. Here is a YouTube version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8erTkOIL-Pc
 
Craig4 said:
So what you're saying is that it's okay to accuse people of mass murder and trivialize the loss of thousands even though you can't be bothered to apply the effort and discipline necessary to understand the topic. This is why I say that this topic deserves better than you.
Click to expand...

The official number of people killed in the 9/11 attacks is over 3000 I think. So of course, if that figure is correct, then it's a form of mass murder. Don't you think so?
 
Anders Lindman said:
The official number of people killed in the 9/11 attacks is over 3000 I think. So of course, if that figure is correct, then it's a form of mass murder. Don't you think so?
Click to expand...

You number is correct. Yes, Usama bin Laden and Al Qaidia are guilty then of mass murder for hijacking aircraft and flying them into buildings. You have no evidence that anyone else is also guilty of that crime.
 
You folks don't GET it. Anders doesn't need evidence to believe what he believes. Evidence is for suckers!
 
Anders Lindman said:
Because my guess is that the fireball explosion would in reality have started directly at impact, not some second later.
Click to expand...


Well the fireball was at impact. Any kind of fuel needs is the right mixture of air so the fluid can combust.

Of course you're too shallow to think about this.
 
Anders Lindman said:
That according to the FBI, Usama Bin Laden is not guilty of the 9/11 attacks.
Click to expand...

The fact that the U.S. Military is engaged in combat operations with the desired end state of the death or capture of Usama Bin Laden and the destruction of his organization for the 9/11 attacks doesn't adequately communicate enough official disapproval then?
 
Last edited:
Craig4 said:
The fact that the U.S. Military is engaged in combat operations with the desired end state of the death or capture of Usama Bin Laden and the destruction of his organization for the 9/11 attacks doesn't adequately communicate enough official disapproval then?
Click to expand...

Not according to the FBI it seems.
 
9/11 Chewy Defense said:
Well the fireball was at impact. Any kind of fuel needs is the right mixture of air so the fluid can combust.

Of course you're too shallow to think about this.
Click to expand...

The fireball started inside the building (because it was staged). A real plane crash would have resulted in the fireball starting earlier.
 
Anders Lindman said:
The fireball started inside the building (because it was staged). A real plane crash would have resulted in the fireball starting earlier.
Click to expand...

You know, confusing yourself with pyrotechnics isn't solving anything.

Actually you're wrong! A plane impacting any structure or surface will cause a fireball at the impact site.

Take a look at this B-52 Stratofortress crash that results in a fireball right at impact:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUEhNKBi4DY

You're debunked!
 
Anders Lindman said:
Not according to the FBI it seems.
Click to expand...

Have you explored the possibility that after the US military engages him in some very kinetic way there might not be much point in arresting him on trial or that if captured he might be tried in a military tribunal (not that I'm a huge fan of that process).
 
Anders Lindman said:
The fireball started inside the building (because it was staged). A real plane crash would have resulted in the fireball starting earlier.
Click to expand...

Why do you say stuff like this when you actually have no idea what you are talking about? Do you think we're just going to take your word for it? We're not a couple blokes at the local pub you know.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom