Merged No Planer calls for scientific study / Missiles of 9/11

you people just shut up. He's knows more physics than all of you combined, allowing him to resist the brainwashing you have all endured. Don't worry, Mikey. I believe...

I for one welcome our Mikey overlords...
 
Sunstealer said:
What on earth are you droning on about? Inner grid? WTF is the inner grid? The WTC towers were of very simple construction yet you seem to be totally unaware, just like most truthers, as to how they were constructed.
Click to expand...
You don't know how a building works and what makes it strong. It is a structure that gets its strength from elements joined together, and sealed off by gravity. You don't realize that a plane is made of longerons connected by cross ribs, strong enough not to fall apart above a certain speed, which is not much higher than its cruising speed at optimal altitude. You believe that kinetic energy behaves always in the same manner irrespective of proprieties of matter and geometry and distribution of energy involved.This believe in magic properties of some sort of kinetic wave at speeds that can fool your intuition makes you unwilling to consider any other aspect that must be included before you can move on.

Yep, a drone the size of a B767, followed by radar all the way, with many parts from that aircraft found etc, etc, etc.
Click to expand...
A drone is still a plane. Who was searching through the debris, FBI or the Red Cross.Did they also recover parts from the plane that hit the North Tower?
 
Mikeys said:
You see, that's what I am talking about.
Click to expand...
We know, All the parts from the planes that hit the towers that you believe shouldn't have done as much damage.

I bet you really love the picture of the landing gear wedged into the columns found in the parking lot. :rolleyes:
 
atavisms said:
'No planes' claims are disinformation. You know, 'nonsense as a weapon.'
But look at the FACTS and you will find the demolition theory is far and away the most satisfactory in explaining observations. Why do you think that no investigators tested for explosives, ever!?
A skyscraper implodes symmetrically, two others -nearly the largest on earth, are converted into powder and pieces of steel it islogical to think explosives may have beeninvolved.

Despite that fact that historically the level of destruction at any bombing or fire site has been used as the determinant in such situations, that was not done here.
Despite regulations indicating it should have been done, as the firefighters at firefighters for 911 truth so aptly point out.
Click to expand...

Really?

How do the bad guys guarantee that the "collapses" would come to fruition?

Wake the heck up.

What would have happened if one of the planes didn't hit a tower?

If a plane didn't hit its tower, the planted explosive, whatever it was, would have been discovered.

Common sense alarm.


As usual, I am the smartest person in the room. I'm used to it.
 
Last edited:
Mikeys said:
A drone is still a plane.
Click to expand...

Well, sort of. Typically a plane carries passengers...Drones....not so much. But yes, by the strictest of definitions, a drone is a plane. However, a drone doesn't have windows typically.

1111111111111111111111111111111.jpg


Mikeys said:
Who was searching through the debris, FBI or the Red Cross.
Click to expand...

FBI, ATF, NTSB, NYPD, FDNY, etc. etc. etc. Why would the ARC be looking through the debris?

Mikeys said:
Did they also recover parts from the plane that hit the North Tower?
Click to expand...

Yes. Many of them. Problem?
 
DGM said:
We know, All the parts from the planes that hit the towers that you believe shouldn't have done as much damage.

I bet you really love the picture of the landing gear wedged into the columns found in the parking lot. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You think people who could do 9/11 would have trouble smuggling the right kind of gear into the site. Not a big deal. I neither love it nor hate it. It's irrelevant. Where did I say the engines with lots of momentum couldn't have done damage?
It's also irrelevant to the big picture presented. They would hit locally, and the damage made should be easily seen.
 
Mikeys said:
You think people who could do 9/11 would have trouble smuggling the right kind of gear into the site. Not a big deal.
Click to expand...

Yeah, in real time. :rolleyes:

You don't see how stupid this sounds? :eek:

Mikeys said:
It's also irrelevant to the big picture presented. They would hit locally, and the damage made should be easily seen.
Click to expand...

I kind of remember seeing a hole in the building. :rolleyes:
 
Clayton Moore said:
Really?

How do the bad guys guarantee that the "collapses" would come to fruition?

Wake the heck up.

What would have happened if one of the planes didn't hit a tower?

If a plane didn't hit its tower, the planted explosive, whatever it was, would have been discovered.

Common sense alarm.
Click to expand...

If they'd missed the tower they could have either circled round and tried again, or ploughed into downtown Manhattan.

As usual, I am the smartest person in the room. I'm used to it.
Click to expand...

That's not a room, that's a broom closet.
 
Mikey it just makes you sound stupid when you imply that plane parts were smuggled, real time, all around the buildings. Unless you have evidence of this, it's just you irrationaly hand waving away evidence contrary to your opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

ETA: Just noticed you now have Clayton "I'm the smartest guy in the room" Moore fighting the fight with you. I'm impressed!
 
Last edited:
triforcharity said:
Well, sort of. Typically a plane carries passengers...Drones....not so much. But yes, by the strictest of definitions, a drone is a plane. However, a drone doesn't have windows typically.
Click to expand...
typically not.

Yes. Many of them. Problem?
Click to expand...
Well, kind of. No one saw that plane coming. If I were a conspirator, there would be no need for hitting the North Tower with a plane. Overkill. Since you you follow official side I don't see anything wrong with your reasoning.
 
Mikeys said:
You don't know how a building works and what makes it strong. It is a structure that gets its strength from elements joined together, and sealed off by gravity. You don't realize that a plane is made of longerons connected by cross ribs, strong enough not to fall apart above a certain speed, which is not much higher than its cruising speed at optimal altitude. You believe that kinetic energy behaves always in the same manner irrespective of proprieties of matter and geometry and distribution of energy involved.This believe in magic properties of some sort of kinetic wave at speeds that can fool your intuition makes you unwilling to consider any other aspect that must be included before you can move on.
Click to expand...
Wow there is so much fail here.

"...sealed off by gravity" - What does that even mean?

It's hardly worth trying to converse with you because from the above statement it's obvious you have absolutely zero knowledge.

You forgot about the wings. What are the components of a wing? I'll tell you now that the wing and wing box are far more sturdy than the aircraft body. They are massive structures. Note the word structure.

You don't even know the simple equation for KE. KE=1/2mv2
This has nothing to do with "properties of matter". It's to do with velocity and mass. If not, then point to the parts of the equation that deal with properties of matter. In your world bullets which are made of relatively soft lead (Pb) cannot penetrate steel (harder material) plate.

Come on Mr Physics MSc, PhD, start doing the maths and put us all to rights. You can't, we know you can't and we know you are a liar.
 
Last edited:
Sunstealer said:
Wow there is so much fail here.
Click to expand...
Point to what is incorrect
"...sealed off by gravity" - What does that even mean?
Click to expand...
It means that weight is a measure of gravity. It also means that the more weight you have above the stronger a structure below is. This of course is correct when you use right materials and build it to engineering specifications. If you put a bucket with water on fluff, it won't work. Fluff lacks density and it will crumple.

You forgot about the wings. What are the components of a wing? I'll tell you now that the wing and wing box are far more sturdy than the aircraft body. They are massive structures. Note the word structure.
Click to expand...
I've seen many times how sturdy they are on impact.
You don't even know the simple equation for KE. KE=1/2mv2
Click to expand...
I am doomed.
In your world bullets which are made of relatively soft lead (Pb) cannot penetrate steel (harder material) plate.
Click to expand...
Where did I say that? You are welcome to quote the post.
Come on Mr Physics MSc, PhD, start doing the maths and put us all to rights. You can't, we know you can't and we know you are a liar.
Click to expand...
How do you know that I can't. Where did I say that?
 
Mikeys said:
It means that weight is a measure of gravity.
Click to expand...

No, it's a measure of mass in response to gravity.


Mikeys said:
It also means that the more weight you have above the stronger a structure below is. This of course is correct when you use right materials and build it to engineering specifications.
Click to expand...

Only if you want it to stand. It does not "mean" it is.

Mikeys said:
If you put a bucket with water on fluff, it won't work. Fluff lacks density and it will crumple.
Click to expand...

That depends on the size of the bucket of water. ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom