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

Mikeys said:
Assuming parts of fuselage survived the impact and fire, how did it survive the collapse while pretty much anything else turned to dust.
Click to expand...

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/111noconcreteonbeams.jpg
Not dust. You posted another lie.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/steelstuffWTC.jpg
Not dust. Why are you making statements since you know nothing about 911?

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtclookingforThermitenotfound.jpg
Not dust.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/NotMelted.jpg
Not dust.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/see.jpg
Not dust.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1ChunksofConcrete.jpg
Chunks of concrete, with some dust.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/11crushedfloors.jpg
3 floors crushed together, not dust. Why did you lie?

The aircraft did the damage seen, your claim they did not is false.
 
Mikeys said:
Any other plane that ever crashed wasn't subsequently flattened by a whole bunch of floors coming down on it. The floors that could flatten the tower to dust left the fuselage. Another incredible and counter intuitive glid in this chain of fantastic events. I can take one or two, but when one comes after another and another and another, you need to stop somewhere. A chain of credible events that form nearly incredible accidents happen regularly. When you have a very large number of, say, flights across the world, you are bound to hear of such accidents or have a chance to witness them if you are a frequent flier or work for an airplane company. Here we have a progression of incredible events that end in an accident. Let's assume the accident is just an ordinary one, and there was no political large scale operations that followed. Show me one similar case, just one, not necessary involving aviation.
Click to expand...

Um.

I'd also like to point out that counter-intuitive is not the same as wrong.
 
Mikeys said:
The photo shown by beachnut clearly shows fuselage, and a large chunk at that. It might have somehow landed on the bottom in fair shape, but again what are the odds.
Click to expand...
One.

As in 100%.

Because it actually happened.

All concrete was pulverized. What kind of concrete was used there, what density?
Click to expand...
Please prove that all concrete in the building was pulverized.

Just for contrast;

Mikeys said:
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.
Click to expand...

Mikeys said:
Assuming parts of fuselage survived the impact and fire, how did it survive the collapse while pretty much anything else turned to dust.
Click to expand...

So first aluminum shoulda been dustified, then everything else but the aluminum turned to dust, now only all the concrete turned to dust.

The funny thing is, all of these statements are wrong. All of 'em. You're moving goalposts, and you're still losing the game.
 
beachnut said:
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/11crushedfloors.jpg
3 floors crushed together, not dust. Why did you lie?
Click to expand...

Clayton Moore said:
3 floors fused together. Why did you lie?
Click to expand...

1312644019061.jpg


20 floors crushed (or fused) together. What did you derp?

layers.jpg
 
Sunstealer said:
You seem to think that the Egyptians should have built their pyramids upside down.

There is a limit to the amount of weight you can place on any structure. Stone will crush itself at some point. This is the reason why very tall buildings are not made of stone. They would fall down because the base loses it's structural integrity.

You also don't seem to realise that skyscrapers will use less steel and therefore weight at the top than they do at the bottom for similar reasons. Can you show me a modern tall building where the weight of the top half is greater than the weight of the bottom half?

In your world we should just be able to design buildings by simply adding more weight until we reach the moon.
Click to expand...

The ancient Egyptians learned what Mikeys doesn't know; there are limits to the stability of structures as you build upward. Hence, the "Bent Pyramid" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bent_Pyramid), whose design was modified after the collapse of the Meidum "Broken" Pyramid.
 
Originally posted by Mikeys:

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.
Click to expand...

:jaw-dropp Please tell me that you are doing this as some kind of weird performance art, like Sasha Baron Cohen.
 
Mikeys said:
I hoped for some unknown to me evidence of the plane, and not the video that have been proved to be badly CGIed.
Click to expand...


Really? It's been proved? By who? Where is this proof set out in detail with supporting evidence? Does it cite, for example, sworn affidavits from the Naudet brothers that their video is not real? Does it have copies of work orders to the companies/departments/agencies involved who were commissioned to create the fake video? (I doubt such work is done for free.) Do you have copies of cheques cashed by the Naudet brothers which set out how much they were paid to lie about their video being the real thing? Etcetera and so forth.

If you haven't got such documentary evidence, you haven't got proof the videos are fake.
 
What is it with conspiracy theorists who declare something with no evidence to support it "proven", and then continue the debate as if it's true?
 
twinstead said:
What is it with conspiracy theorists who declare something with no evidence to support it "proven", and then continue the debate as if it's true?
Click to expand...

Funny you posted that, I was just thinking of it. Here are the top three examples that come to mind (not quoted exactly), posted ad naseum:

  1. "I proved the girder walk-off could not happen"
  2. "The fact that the moon landings are a hoax is incontrovertible"
  3. "My 40+ medical witnesses demonstrate Kennedy was shot from the front"

Names witheld to protect the guilty.
 
twinstead said:
What is it with conspiracy theorists who declare something with no evidence to support it "proven", and then continue the debate as if it's true?
Click to expand...

That is their default position I think. All possibilities are correct until proven wrong. Unless you just can't accept it, and then its still correct. Nah nah nah nah nah nah I can't hear you!
 
Corsair 115 said:
Really? It's been proved? By who? Where is this proof set out in detail with supporting evidence? Does it cite, for example, sworn affidavits from the Naudet brothers that their video is not real? Does it have copies of work orders to the companies/departments/agencies involved who were commissioned to create the fake video? (I doubt such work is done for free.) Do you have copies of cheques cashed by the Naudet brothers which set out how much they were paid to lie about their video being the real thing? Etcetera and so forth.

If you haven't got such documentary evidence, you haven't got proof the videos are fake.
Click to expand...

Dude, it's a video. It doesn't have civilian rights. The prove is in the video. It's self provable. The conspirators admitted the video relates the real story. What more do you want?
 
Mikeys said:
Dude, it's a video. It doesn't have civilian rights. The prove is in the video. It's self provable. The conspirators admitted the video relates the real story. What more do you want?
Click to expand...

This is just . . . cracked. Who are these conspirators you speak of, where is their admission published and what is the 'real story'? You just said it, so back it up or admit realize you're just dancing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom