misc notes etc...
Yes you did.
It was not a crash. In a crash pilots are trained to fly the plane at the slowest speed to maintain control. If this was an accident, the plane would have fallen off the building, at a speed less than 200 mph.
The topic of this thread is the OP video. Did you watch the video, the nut in the video says the same things you do. He failed to make a valid point. What birds, the ones you said damaged aircraft. Don't you remember what you said?
The WTC was on purpose, not a crash, an attack. The terrorists did it on purpose, that is why the FBI was lead on the investigation, it was not a crash, not an accident, it was murder. The terrorist pilots went faster to inflict more damage.
At the Pentagon the terrorist pilot pushed the throttles up to 100 percent in the last 30 seconds and accelerated to 483 KIAS (knots). This is why these "crashes" look different, because the pilots were trying to do the most damage.
Aircraft accidents that look the same? I can't think of a single pilot in the USA who would accelerate into a building during a crash. ... the only similar accidents to the on purpose terrorist attacks are crash into the ground when the pilot lost control, or was spatially disoriented.
When an aircraft hits at high speed, like all the planes on 911, not much is left that looks like a plane. Similar impacts.
What use to be a big airplane, is now small parts smashed due to a lot of kinetic energy. Like 93.
Two aircraft impacts, and nothing 911 truthers can see as an aircraft, so they make up lies.
Those pictures above, are of the largest pieces in a high speed crash; see anything? The pilots are buried sometimes 30 feet into the ground, like the people on flight 93. The people 911 truth disrespect in death by making up nonsense.
When they can't get slowed down, pilots try to avoid hitting people, buildings and hard stuff. Why do planes not crash into buildings? They have, but the pilots were going slower, as slow as they can and still fly when lost, or like the ESB.
You can't do the math to see a plane would cut through the WTC when it has kinetic energy equal to 2093 pounds of TNT. Why can't you do physics. Let me help you. It is a known fact (too bad you can't find the study or believe the structural engineer of the WTC, Robertson) a 180 to 200 mph impact from an aircraft would not enter the WTC, not do major damage. Like breaking down a door, a little bump does not do it, but a bump 11 times greater than what the door can stop, makes the door fail quickly. You don't do physics, you are stuck asking to see crashes which never happened at high speed. ... but
There have never been crashes over 200 mph at 250,000 pounds or higher in any sky scraper. Planes are not allowed to fly within a 1,000 feet of buildings and cities. Sorry, only terrorists pilots and nuts crash at high speed. The terrorists you apologize for by making up lies. ... but
What lies do you have for 93 and 77?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/carbrickwall.jpg
A brick wall like the Pentagon, a slow speed car. oops
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/carbrickwall2.jpg
oops, slow speed, a hole. Imagine the car going 500 mph!
Your problem is, can you show me a high speed impact that did not do the damage as seen on 911. Look for speeds of 470 knots to 590 mph. Show me an impact from a heavy jet going 470 knots to 590 mph into similar buildings that did not do the damage seen. Good luck.
OKAY! I will lead you to water...
Oops, a 18 by 20 foot hole! oops
An engine runs all the way through the building... oops
... like the WTC, ... funny 911 truth can't do the physics.
The WTC was stronger than the ESB, ...
You can't do your own research and make rational claims? Do your parents do your homework for you?
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0311.shtml
Why can't you do your own research? Is your google stuck giving 911 truth lies and fantasy?
Was not a crash, it was an attack. Attack. Not an accident, an on purpose attack. Did you miss it?
Yes you did.
It was not a crash. In a crash pilots are trained to fly the plane at the slowest speed to maintain control. If this was an accident, the plane would have fallen off the building, at a speed less than 200 mph.
The topic of this thread is the OP video. Did you watch the video, the nut in the video says the same things you do. He failed to make a valid point. What birds, the ones you said damaged aircraft. Don't you remember what you said?
The WTC was on purpose, not a crash, an attack. The terrorists did it on purpose, that is why the FBI was lead on the investigation, it was not a crash, not an accident, it was murder. The terrorist pilots went faster to inflict more damage.
At the Pentagon the terrorist pilot pushed the throttles up to 100 percent in the last 30 seconds and accelerated to 483 KIAS (knots). This is why these "crashes" look different, because the pilots were trying to do the most damage.
Aircraft accidents that look the same? I can't think of a single pilot in the USA who would accelerate into a building during a crash. ... the only similar accidents to the on purpose terrorist attacks are crash into the ground when the pilot lost control, or was spatially disoriented.
When an aircraft hits at high speed, like all the planes on 911, not much is left that looks like a plane. Similar impacts.
What use to be a big airplane, is now small parts smashed due to a lot of kinetic energy. Like 93.
Two aircraft impacts, and nothing 911 truthers can see as an aircraft, so they make up lies.
Those pictures above, are of the largest pieces in a high speed crash; see anything? The pilots are buried sometimes 30 feet into the ground, like the people on flight 93. The people 911 truth disrespect in death by making up nonsense.
When they can't get slowed down, pilots try to avoid hitting people, buildings and hard stuff. Why do planes not crash into buildings? They have, but the pilots were going slower, as slow as they can and still fly when lost, or like the ESB.
You can't do the math to see a plane would cut through the WTC when it has kinetic energy equal to 2093 pounds of TNT. Why can't you do physics. Let me help you. It is a known fact (too bad you can't find the study or believe the structural engineer of the WTC, Robertson) a 180 to 200 mph impact from an aircraft would not enter the WTC, not do major damage. Like breaking down a door, a little bump does not do it, but a bump 11 times greater than what the door can stop, makes the door fail quickly. You don't do physics, you are stuck asking to see crashes which never happened at high speed. ... but
There have never been crashes over 200 mph at 250,000 pounds or higher in any sky scraper. Planes are not allowed to fly within a 1,000 feet of buildings and cities. Sorry, only terrorists pilots and nuts crash at high speed. The terrorists you apologize for by making up lies. ... but
What lies do you have for 93 and 77?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/carbrickwall.jpg
A brick wall like the Pentagon, a slow speed car. oops
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/carbrickwall2.jpg
oops, slow speed, a hole. Imagine the car going 500 mph!
Your problem is, can you show me a high speed impact that did not do the damage as seen on 911. Look for speeds of 470 knots to 590 mph. Show me an impact from a heavy jet going 470 knots to 590 mph into similar buildings that did not do the damage seen. Good luck.
OKAY! I will lead you to water...
Wiki helps you out.
Oops, a 18 by 20 foot hole! oops
An engine runs all the way through the building... oops
... like the WTC, ... funny 911 truth can't do the physics.
The WTC was stronger than the ESB, ...
You can't do your own research and make rational claims? Do your parents do your homework for you?
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0311.shtml
Why can't you do your own research? Is your google stuck giving 911 truth lies and fantasy?
Last edited:
