TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
you would have seen evidence of that collision in all the videos of the events, and you don't.
I do.
you would have seen evidence of that collision in all the videos of the events, and you don't.
Most of the rest of the world knows what happened to those people. Why do you disrespect their memories with comments like the above?
Nearly everyone else already understands what happened. Have you ever asked them?I only replied to your question. Left to my own devices, I wouldn't
be talking about planes at all, because I study what destroyed
the World Trade Center.
The air traffic controllers never give a consistent story.
Richard D. Hall seems pretty smart, and he talks about the
radar, so I'm guessing that it exists.
Radar isn't my thing. I might be able to use radar, given a bit
of training, but I certainly wouldn't know how to validate radar,
even if I tried, so I don't.
If Richard D. Hall says radar exists, and that it means something,
then I'm ok with that. On the other hand, if it turns out not to
exist, it wouldn't rock my world, either.

I only replied to your question. Left to my own devices, I wouldn't
be talking about planes at all, because I study what destroyed
the World Trade Center.
Nope. That a meat bird can destroy an aluminum wing of an airplane.
So I'm winning this one.
A four inch thick wall of steel? No. Absolutely not. Steel is almost miraculously strong when it is four inches thick.
A plane impact might be able to break a four inch thick wall, but not pierce through it undamaged like the videos seem to show.
WE HAVE VIDEO! It doesn't show plane debris.
This is evidence of absence, not absence of evidence.
All I can say is that I do not know anything at all about the people you are referring to.
because I study what destroyed the World Trade Center.
Right on, Clayton! Correct. You're the only one who gets a good grade on this topic.
We disagree about TV Video Fakery, most likely, but at least you got that part exactly right.
We don't really disagree. I realize that real planes would have brought about too many contingencies into the event. Pilot error. Individuals late for the take off. Interception. The planes had to hit their targets precisely in a timely manner. The contingencies were avoided.
The buildings were armed to be destroyed. They had to be set off and the "evidence" destroyed.
LOL
You're saying they build skyscrapers out of steel instead of aluminum
because steel is cheaper than aluminum? LOLOLOLOL
It can damage it enough to render it unusable, so that's destroyed in my book.
Here's your problem, you're trying to ignore the planes.
Are you going to admit you are wrong about the NTSB and reconstructing planes?
Are you going to admit that Mark Bingham saying his full name on the phone to his mother is not strange. She didn't think it was.
Are you going to admit that a small prop-plane is not a worthy comparison to 500mph 767s?
You ignored mine and beachnut's responses to your 26 reasons.
Be sure to ignore some alloys of Al are stronger than steel.It was thicker than four inches, but what are you talking about? How would you characterize the construction of the south wall of WTC 2?
You expect someone who thinks steel turned to foam will understand anything real...Heck, is she going to tell me why she disagrees with my refutation of her points regarding navigating an airplane on a clear ay?
To Tracy: before you hold forth on how impossible it was for the hijackers to fly from Boston to New York, remember that you're talking to someone who teaches people how to fly. You better be ready to defend your answer rigorously. When you're done, I'll let you know how many ground and flight hours it typically takes to learn the basic skills required (to those that know, don't give up the answer - I want her thoughts first).
....
this is a joke, right?
Not all of it.OK. There is undoubtedly debris falling down from the building. It came after the explosion.
So am I.I'm talking about after the object passed into the building but before the explosion.
I do. What's your problem?If it had been a real plane really crashing into the south face of WTC 2, you would have seen evidence of that collision in all the videos of the events, and you don't.
Fantasy denialism. The expolsion you saw was the fuel exploding after it was mixed with air in the building. And it was mixed with air because the plane was smashed to pieces as it crashed into and through the building.Yeah, debris fell from the building, but after the explosion. The explosion was real. A collision did not take place before the explosion.
We don't really disagree. I realize that real planes would have brought about too many contingencies into the event. Pilot error. Individuals late for the take off. Interception. The planes had to hit their targets precisely in a timely manner. The contingencies were avoided.
The buildings were armed to be destroyed. They had to be set off and the "evidence" destroyed.
Heck, is she going to tell me why she disagrees with my refutation of her points regarding navigating an airplane on a clear ay?
To Tracy: before you hold forth on how impossible it was for the hijackers to fly from Boston to New York, remember that you're talking to someone who teaches people how to fly. You better be ready to defend your answer rigorously. When you're done, I'll let you know how many ground and flight hours it typically takes to learn the basic skills required (to those that know, don't give up the answer - I want her thoughts first).
Steel wins in a contest of aluminum vs. steel, at the supposed velocity of the plane and the actual thickness of the metals involved.
An aluminum plane might be able to puncture through a paper thin sheet of steel and keep on trucking, but the exterior steel beams of the WTC were much thicker than that.
I say it's "unlikely" not "impossible".
OK - "unlikely". How much training would it require, in your humble opinion?
LOL
You're saying they build skyscrapers out of steel instead of aluminum
because steel is cheaper than aluminum? LOLOLOLOL