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

Anders Lindman said:
Prior, how much prior? It seems certain that flight 175 was a real plane, but I don't think it crashed into the WTC. There is even evidence for flight 175 still flying in the air after it is supposed to have crashed (see previous posts).
Click to expand...

Good Lord man, or woman, whatever the case. Can’t you do anything on your own other than making up fantasies? Just a couple of minutes would have been more than enough time to find that the EWR controllers had visual contact with Flt. 175 for several minutes prior to the aircraft hitting the south tower. In fact, EWR tower contacted NY Center and informed them that Flt.175 had indeed impacted.
 
Justin39640 said:
"No resistance" would indicate that it should have come out the other side with no damage. It's not out fault you can't grasp the concept. It's your fault that you're admittedly too lazy to figure it out for yourself. I think this is the issue with most truthers. You're just a little more honest about it.

Congrats! lol
Click to expand...

Sorry, I meant the facades of the buildings. The exterior steel columns and so on.
 
jaydeehess said:
Given that the car would have a mass of approx that of an aircraft engine, yes I do believe that if it were travelling at 500MPH it would indeed server a column or two and enter the building.

The front of the car would begin to crush against the column but within 7 miliseconds (which BTW, would be approx 1/5th of the elapsed time between frames of video monitoring this)the engine itself is contacting the column.
If it lost 90% of its momentum travelling the lenghth of the car itself as it contacted the column it would take about 0.02 seconds to enter the building(which is still less than the time between video frames..)
Click to expand...

It's perhaps possible that a car would be able to cut through the exterior steel columns (who were thinner on the higher floors) BUT no way would a car be able to glide into one of the steel and concrete floors.

That's what I meant by the tennis racket analogy earlier. The floors and the steel columns would be like the strings in the racket. And a fragile airliner with lots of fuel in its wings would be like a raw egg hitting the tennis racket at high velocity. Would the egg/airliner splash a lot against the surface? I think it would.
 
DGM said:
I'm wondering why the buildings swayed and the seismographs picked up the impacts if there was no resistance.


:boggled:
Click to expand...

Seismographs showed small but clear signals from the alleged plane impacts yes, but the same seismic signals would have been created if explosives were used to emulate a plane crash (explosives plus kerosene).
 
fess said:
Good Lord man, or woman, whatever the case. Can’t you do anything on your own other than making up fantasies? Just a couple of minutes would have been more than enough time to find that the EWR controllers had visual contact with Flt. 175 for several minutes prior to the aircraft hitting the south tower. In fact, EWR tower contacted NY Center and informed them that Flt.175 had indeed impacted.
Click to expand...

Then those must be fake witness testimonies, if people at EWR really claimed that they saw in real life a plane hitting the South Tower. They probably saw it on CNN. :rolleyes:
 
Anders Lindman said:
Then those must be fake witness testimonies, if people at EWR really claimed that they saw in real life a plane hitting the South Tower. They probably saw it on CNN. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
It must be hard for you, a failed liar, to figure out people who are truthful.

No fake witnesses, your claims are fake. Your claims are lies. You have delusions.

jujigatami said:
... I saw both planes hit. I would commute from NJ. Sometimes I'd take the PATH train from Hoboken, on nice days I'd take the ferry. 9/11 was a beautiful morning, and I took the ferry. I got off the ferry at the World financial center and began walking to my office on 45 Broadway. To do this, you have to walk DIRECTLY toward WTC1 As I was walking I heard a jets roar. I looked up. Now [feel free to delete this if it will make CT’ers take it out of context] I expected it to me some sort of military plane since every now and then military jets do fly down the Hudson river. IT WAS NOT. I saw a huge jetliner fly over me and SLAM IN TO THE TOWER!!! I had a PERFECT vantage point. Even then, I couldn’t actually process what I had seen. I kept thinking it couldn’t have been an American Airlines plane, sure that’s what I saw, but it just couldn’t have been. It had to be something else. ...
Click to expand...
Now you have to call thousands of people liars, and the families of the people on the planes, you spit on them. You must be such a great person. Good job, ignore is not good enough for your moronic lies, but it will do.

See Obama, in your avatar, I told him about you; he is laughing at your failure.
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
Then those must be fake witness testimonies, if people at EWR really claimed that they saw in real life a plane hitting the South Tower. They probably saw it on CNN. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Typical troofer BS, hand wave everything away and claim the evidence is fake, or everyone is lying. You are one sad individual. Or, as you already said, you are too damn lazy to do anything for yourself.
 
beachnut said:
It must be hard for you, a failed liar, to figure out people who are truthful.

No fake witnesses, your claims are fake. Your claims are lies. You have delusions.


Now you have to call thousands of people liars, and the families of the people on the planes, you spit on them. You must be such a great person. Good job, ignore is not good enough for your moronic lies, but it will do.

See Obama, in your avatar, I told him about you; he is laughing at your failure.
Click to expand...

Yes, I believe thousands and thousands of people are lying in what has become a massive cover-up. Many highly respected people agree with me. I don't know how many believe there were no planes at all involved in the 9/11 attacks though. I suspect that most people still think the idea of faked crashes in the WTC towers is unbelievable. People should watch September Clues for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEMI3KkryxU
 
fess said:
Typical troofer BS, hand wave everything away and claim the evidence is fake, or everyone is lying. You are one sad individual. Or, as you already said, you are too damn lazy to do anything for yourself.
Click to expand...

I have pointed out some suspicious witness testimonies in the past. It seems difficult to prove that they are fake. It would be interesting instead to do a search for people who claim they didn't see a plane.

For example, the News anchor in this video doesn't mention seeing any plane (and he must have been looking at a monitor with very high quality video), and remember that a Boeing 767 is almost as wide as the towers, so it should have been visible, yet no plane can be seen before the explosion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjSHELkknR8&feature=player_embedded#at=30
 
Anders Lindman said:
I have pointed out some suspicious witness testimonies in the past. It seems difficult to prove that they are fake. It would be interesting instead to do a search for people who claim they didn't see a plane.

For example, the News anchor in this video doesn't mention seeing any plane (and he must have been looking at a monitor with very high quality video), and remember that a Boeing 767 is almost as wide as the towers, so it should have been visible, yet no plane can be seen before the explosion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjSHELkknR8&feature=player_embedded#at=30
Click to expand...

Pretty dishonest of you to start the video at 30 seconds. Cause at like 25 you can see the plane coming in. :rolleyes:
 
Justin39640 said:
Pretty dishonest of you to start the video at 30 seconds. Cause at like 25 you can see the plane coming in. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Whoops! You're right. I missed that. :o Still, the news anchor must have been watching the same event on a monitor with much higher quality.
 
Here I found a short video clip with an interesting observation of how a dust cloud appears on different places in two videos of flight 175 showing imo that these videos are fake (although there is an [unsuccessful] attempt to debunk it at the end of the video): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCSNAPqyY1I

Another thing to notice in the video is the sequence from about 0:38 where at around 0:45 the start of the explosion can be seen where the frame rate has been slowed down significantly, and then is sped up again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCSNAPqyY1I#at=38
 
beachnut said:
It must be hard for you, a failed liar, to figure out people who are truthful.

No fake witnesses, your claims are fake. Your claims are lies. You have delusions.


Now you have to call thousands of people liars, and the families of the people on the planes, you spit on them. You must be such a great person. Good job, ignore is not good enough for your moronic lies, but it will do.

See Obama, in your avatar, I told him about you; he is laughing at your failure.
Click to expand...

I think his avatar means he's laughing at us for enabling his act.
 
Anders Lindman said:
The pressure drop (or something like that) shown in the diagram from only one radar station.

The radar data is an important part of the no plane theories. If there were no plane hitting the Pentagon, then that radar data must be faked (or nonexistent). The same with the radar data for the planes allegedly having hit the World Trade Center.
Click to expand...

You mean besides the plane we know hit the Pentagon right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom