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

[Mikeys]

To but it simply......you are wrong.....not partially wrong, totally wrong.

Don't quote my posts out of context by splitting it. I saw you doing it notoriously.

 

[DGM]

Not really. Strength alone wouldn't prohibit from using hard stones like granite to raise tall structures, and even common brick could be used to raise structures higher than they are if it wasn't for gravity

Finished that thought for you. No charge.

 

[beachnut]

Just so I'm clear; you are asking about who saw AA Flight 11, which struck the north tower, coming? Because the planes were tracked on radar after one of the hijackers accidentally hit the ATC switch instead of the Intercom. They even sent fighters, though it was already too late.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_11

Witnesses saw the plane flying at low altitude over Manhattan and thought the aircraft was in distress. Lieutenant William Walsh of the FDNY (who appears in the documentary film 9/11) witnessed the aircraft: "We were under the impression – he looked like he was going down, but we didn't hear any mechanical difficulty. We couldn't figure out why an American Airlines plane would be so low in downtown Manhattan. We sort of expected him to veer off and go into the Hudson. But he just rose a little bit, his altitude, leveled off, and he was headed straight for the Trade Center. So just before he got to the Trade Center it seemed as though he gained power. We were just watching this airplane on target for the World Trade Center. All of a sudden, boom! He disappears into the Trade Center."[35]

We have someone who,

... I am quite unfamiliar with 911. Just plodding under stones.

He does not care about 911, refuses to discuss and read the evidence presented to him. And has no clue on 911 issues, except;

It was an Airplane, Boeing,aluminum, color white. It came with the shadow thingy and crashed into a steel wall like a missile. Then came out on the other side. Everyone saw it. The government approves. What more is there to ask? Open and shut case.

Missile have less kinetic energy, they would not do what happen on 911. Physics debunks your fantasy.

... I am quite unfamiliar with 911. Just plodding under stones.

I can prove it easily for you. Just give me a Boeing with a suicidal pilot and empty a skyscraper.

... The victim list is bogus. ...

I can't I am just a pony. ...

Mikeys says, Do you know why airplanes are made of a thin layer of aluminum foil?

No-planes divert the issue hence they are more likely to be manipulators. Who cares whether there were planes there or no. They could not have done the kind of damage they are assumed to have done. Their existence doesn't matter. The claim is real.

How can someone who claims they know nothing about 911 make claims about 911?

... I am quite unfamiliar with 911. Just plodding under stones.

 

[DGM]

Don't quote my posts out of context by splitting it. I saw you doing it notoriously.

His error was yours. If you screw up the quote it repeats in the next post (like it did to yours).

 

[Mikeys]

No. Deny that you believe or have ever claimed the equivalent of that, and I'll apologize and withdraw the assertion.

Well, you claimed I said the plane should have bounced off the wall. I asked you to show me where. Now you want me to prove that I never said it. You are welcome. Go to my account, read all my posts and fish out where I said it. Everyone who wants can do that. If that's how your evidence gathering operates, fine. Just make sure you use it in a more ambiguous context. Otherwise you just make an ass of yourself.

 

[DGM]

Well, you claimed I said the plane should have bounced off the wall.

I would be happy to vouch for you on this. You have never said it should have "bounced off". Funny thing though, you also have never actually said what it should have done (or looked like). You simply say it shouldn't have looked like it did.

Can you see how some people might get confused?

 

[Mikeys]

His error was yours. If you screw up the quote it repeats in the next post (like it did to yours).

Everyone can follow the quote with two clicks form your post. What did I screw up?

 

[beachnut]

Well, you claimed I said the plane should have bounced off the wall. I asked you to show me where. Now you want me to prove that I never said it. You are welcome. Go to my account, read all my posts and fish out where I said it. Everyone who wants can do that. If that's how your evidence gathering operates, fine. Just make sure you use it in a more ambiguous context. Otherwise you just make an ass of yourself.

... I am quite unfamiliar with 911. ...

The truth, you finally know the truth.

How can you comment on this thread, you are quite unfamiliar with 911. When will you study 911? Next year?

... They could not have done the kind of damage they are assumed to have done. ...

Not true, and you can't support your claim with math, and you know nothing about 911, so you don't know the damage done.

... Who cares whether there were planes there or no. ...

Thousands of people who lost loved ones on the jets and in the towers, in PA, and the Pentagon. Millions care, you don't; proving it by spreading nonsense. Why do you hate those who died on 911?

... I said the plane should have bounced off the wall. I asked you to show me where. ...

... They could not have done the kind of damage they are assumed to have done. ...

You said the equal, by pushing this lie, the damage was not possible from an aircraft impact. A lie. Your posts say it can't cut through the shell, thus you get charged with claiming the plane should bounce off the building. But, your claims are nonsense. Claiming the planes can't do the damage, after seeing the damage done by the planes, is an insane claim. You made the insane claim. Are you still in stuck in that comma? ,

 

[Mikeys]

I would be happy to vouch for you on this. You have never said it should have "bounced off". Funny thing though, you also have never actually said what it should have done (or looked like). You simply say it shouldn't have looked like it did.

Can you see how some people might get confused?

I don't remember now, but I would risk a donut I said the flight should have disintegrated at the wall, most likely damaging a section of the wall in some way difficult to predict. Debris should have easily made it inside. The aluminum alone would have become dust before the plane or its debris had a chance to get swallowed inside.

 

[DGM]

Everyone can follow the quote with two clicks form your post. What did I screw up?

The same thing you did in post #521 & #525. I think the (/) got lost in an edit, It messes up the quote. I don't see where he deliberately edited your words.

 

[carlitos]

The same thing you did in post #521 & #525. I think the (/) got lost in an edit, It messes up the quote. I don't see where he deliberately edited your words.

Are you saying that he's doing it notoriously? Are you?

 

[DGM]

I don't remember now, but I would risk a donut I said the flight should have disintegrated at the wall, most likely damaging a section of the wall in some way difficult to predict. Debris should have easily made it inside. The aluminum alone would have become dust before the plane or its debris had a chance to get swallowed inside.

Read your post several times to yourself. It would have ended up inside but the timing was not right? What are you talking about when you say " The aluminum alone would have become dust"? What does that even mean?

You can get technical, I'll understand.

 

[beachnut]

... The aluminum alone would have become dust ...

Got to hand it to 911 truth science, fantasy physics and special extra credit insane material science.

At all the accidents I investigated in the USAF, not one of the planes became aluminum dust. How does that happen in your world of fantasy material?

 

[Mikeys]

Finished that thought for you. No charge.

lol, you are a pain and one hell of a little conspirator The actual quote

"Not really. Strength alone wouldn't prohibit from using hard stones like granite to raise tall structures, and even common brick could be used to raise structures higher than they are. A frame design is needed and stone can't do that."

 

[twinstead]

Not true, and you can't support your claim with math, and you know nothing about 911, so you don't know the damage done.

A bold claim indeed, and worthy of your "give us the math or shut up" response.

 

[Mikeys]

The same thing you did in post #521 & #525. I think the (/) got lost in an edit, It messes up the quote. I don't see where he deliberately edited your words.

fair enough, sorry then.

 

[triforcharity]

typically not.

So where'd that giant piece of a plane come from with the windows in it?

Well, kind of. No one saw that plane coming.

So......

If I were a conspirator, there would be no need for hitting the North Tower with a plane. Overkill.

Their mission was simple. Kill lots of Americans. Two planes are better than one when your mission is to kill.

Since you you follow official side I don't see anything wrong with your reasoning.

Can you try this sentence again?

Also, why did you ignore the part where I explained that the ARC was not the one sorting the debris and told you who was? Was that intentional?

 

[beachnut]

... The aluminum alone would have become dust ...

Dust for 911 truth.

Aircraft parts, aluminum parts, defined as dust? You might want to stop "debating" 911 and switch to Bigfoot. Your evidence and claims are better suited for a fantasy not based on a real event.

 

[DGM]

lol, you are a pain

My (teenage son) thinks I'm evil, He might be right.

and one hell of a little conspirator The actual quote

"Not really. Strength alone wouldn't prohibit from using hard stones like granite to raise tall structures, and even common brick could be used to raise structures higher than they are. A frame design is needed and stone can't do that."

I read the post. I finished the thought where you went wrong. The sentence
"A frame design is needed and stone can't do that" is a meaningless addition (by you).

fair enough, sorry then.

No big deal, it happens all the time.

 

[000063]

No. Deny that you believe or have ever claimed the equivalent of that, and I'll apologize and withdraw the assertion.

Well, you claimed I said the plane should have bounced off the wall. I asked you to show me where. Now you want me to prove that I never said it. You are welcome. Go to my account, read all my posts and fish out where I said it. Everyone who wants can do that. If that's how your evidence gathering operates, fine. Just make sure you use it in a more ambiguous context. Otherwise you just make an ass of yourself.

No, it's quite simple. I made a claim about something you said. You demanded I prove it. I said I would readily admit I was wrong if you denied you ever said it. I did not ask for any evidence. All you have to do is go "I never said that the planes would bounce off or anything similar to that".

Yet you don't.

Odd.

And please stop quote-mining my posts.