Merged No Planes At WTC (Split from: WTC Dust)

Status
Not open for further replies.
excaza said:
Actually, there is. It's called physics. Learn some. In order for pieces to fall down the front of the building, the WTC would have had to stop the entire plane dead at the wall. Do you realize how much energy that would require?
Click to expand...

the distance between the floors was about 12.5 feet. The height of the fuselage was a minimum of 13 feet and some say 17 feet or more. There is no way to avoid the thin aluminium skin being peeled off under these circumstances and falling down the front of the building.
 
alphahelix said:
If the crash was not evident then why on close up shots of the face of the tower we see a big hole with columns bent inward? Something large had to hit the tower. Unless thats a hologram too or picture and video editing. What kind of explosives bends columns inwards reverse-a-booms? Or was the explosion outside the tower? Still waiting for explosion method and type (So there not preplanted that narrows it down)
Click to expand...

The explosions caused the holes.

Whatever destroyed the entire WTC probably destroyed the parts of the building that went missing before the final damage. A hole was created by some means.
 
alphahelix said:
If the crash was not evident then why on close up shots of the face of the tower we see a big hole with columns bent inward? Something large had to hit the tower. Unless thats a hologram too or picture and video editing. What kind of explosives bends columns inwards reverse-a-booms? Or was the explosion outside the tower? Still waiting for explosion method and type (So there not preplanted that narrows it down)
Click to expand...

Very fast dustification? I don't see a conflict here between a DEW destroying the entire building and a DEW making the hole.

If it wasn't DEW, then it wasn't DEW. I just don't see a conflict here.
 
bill smith said:
the distance between the floors was about 12.5 feet. The height of the fuselage was a minimum of 13 feet and some say 17 feet or more. There is no way to avoid the thin aluminium skin being peeled off under these circumstances and falling down the front of the building.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the strong vertical steel beams at the exterior face of WTC 2. These were covered in shiny aluminum cladding, but they were hard, strong steel. Not the flimsy kind.
 
WTC Dust said:
If you had stopped the question here, I could have answered it. A plane image isn't stopped by a material object. They made a boo-boo in not slowing down the plane image and adding plane debris. If they had done this, it would have looked like a plane crash.
Click to expand...
I don't really care how you think that the video might have been faked. How did they do it in real life? Real people saw a plane fly towards the WTC and not past it.

Assumes facts not in evidence.
Click to expand...

Even people that you talked to say the plane crashed into the WTC.

Demonstrably false. Google "WTC noseout". The plane image didn't stop quick enough. The nosecone of the plane image passed all the way through the building and poked out the other side.
Click to expand...

A small piece of the plane isn't the plane. Furthermore, you have no evidence whatsoever that this was the nose cone.
 
bill smith said:
I just wanted to show that the plane would never ever have penetrated the 33 steel box columns without multiple panels and other parts fluttering down the front of the building. There was NO falling debris from the plane to be seen in case you didn't know.
Click to expand...

sorry to be lagging behind, but are sure that all of the columns on the impact floors were "box" columns? I didn't think so.
 
dtugg said:
I don't really care how you think that the video might have been faked. How did they do it in real life? Real people saw a plane fly towards the WTC and not past it.



Even people that you talked to say the plane crashed into the WTC.



A small piece of the plane isn't the plane. Furthermore, you have no evidence whatsoever that this was the nose cone.
Click to expand...

The people I talked to didn't see a crash. They all said they saw the plane go into the building but did not see a crash. They were all located to the north of the WTC, and wouldn't have seen a crash if it had occurred, anyway, which it did not.

There was a fake plane in the sky. It was captured by still photographers, videographers and eyewitnesses. There was no type of plane crash. No images of debris at the south face of WTC 2 exist. Go ahead. Find one.
 
WTC Dust said:
The people I talked to didn't see a crash. They all said they saw the plane go into the building but did not see a crash. They were all located to the north of the WTC, and wouldn't have seen a crash if it had occurred, anyway, which it did not.

There was a fake plane in the sky. It was captured by still photographers, videographers and eyewitnesses. There was no type of plane crash. No images of debris at the south face of WTC 2 exist. Go ahead. Find one.
Click to expand...
And this could be done how?
 
WTC Dust said:
The people I talked to didn't see a crash. They all said they saw the plane go into the building but did not see a crash. They were all located to the north of the WTC, and wouldn't have seen a crash if it had occurred, anyway, which it did not.
Click to expand...

Do they believe that a plane crashed into the WTC or that they were fooled by a magic trick?

There was a fake plane in the sky. It was captured by still photographers, videographers and eyewitnesses. There was no type of plane crash. No images of debris at the south face of WTC 2 exist. Go ahead. Find one.
Click to expand...

What the **** does "fake plane" mean? How did the perps fool people into thinking that the "fake plane" crashed into the WTC? If you cannot answer these questions, no sane person in the world will ever even consider your magic trick "theory."
 
There was a fake plane in the sky. It was captured by still photographers, videographers and eyewitnesses. There was no type of plane crash. No images of debris at the south face of WTC 2 exist. Go ahead. Find one.
Click to expand...

So what happened to the plane, passengers and crew?

How did wreckage from the plane and DNA from the passengers and crew get to Ground Zero?
 
dtugg said:
What the **** does "fake plane" mean? How did the perps fool people into thinking that the "fake plane" crashed into the WTC? If you cannot answer these questions, no sane person in the world will ever even consider your magic trick "theory."
Click to expand...

I don't think that's the audience she's going for!


:o
 
DGM said:
Yet it's a critical point for your "theory". How did you get this far along with this loose end hanging over you (along with many more)?
Click to expand...

Remember: I study what destroyed the World Trade Center.

Planes did not do this. I do not study planes.
 
WTC Dust said:
Remember: I study what destroyed the World Trade Center.

Planes did not do this. I do not study planes.
Click to expand...
How can you study what destroyed the towers if you ignore (or don't believe) most of what was seen that day? You seem to say that everything that counters your "study" is fake. What do you base this on?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom