Joined: 11 Mar 2007 Posts: 48 Location: Pacific Northwest, USA
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:10 am Post subject:
"the term being used to add unconnected elements and to embellish."
The term is a good faith attempt to describe what I think appears in the videos. I'm not "using" it to do anything but express myself.
I agree the impact was perpendicular. There was however a 6 degree vertical angle of approach and 15 degree lateral angle of approach for the South Tower plane. Would the back of the plane continue in that direction resulting in the tail breaking off? It wasn't fixed to a rail car like the F-4 in the Sandia test, and was much longer.
its fairly simple...planes don't travel at 500mph at near ground level and then melt into buildings without leaving any wreckage..only a shill or a complete dumbass would believe that...next question
actually - perhaps only a "complete dumbass" would make such ridiculous claims. why on earth do you NPT sheeple keep on repeating this kind of nonsense as if it's true?
the planes hit the wtc at a height of roughly 1000 ft.
here is a video that shows a boeing 757 flying at 350 knots (ie more than 400mph), 100 feet above a runway at an airport that is 23 feet above sea level, and then ascending rapidly to 8000 feet with consumate ease.
amazing what such a large passenger jet can actually do....
I also don't see what's so strange about a plane going at that speed crashing through the external facade of the wtc - as anticipated by the building's designers.
and it did leave wreckage - although the fact that not much discernable wreckage was found might have something to do with the fact that the whole building was blown to bits an hour later....
mason-free party wrote:
ps..many cases of planes crashing into mountains at high altitude leaving plenty of wreckage/bodies....activate any brain cells?
crashing into a solid mountain is rather different to crashing into a building that has an external frame, beyond which is almost entirely empty space.
its fairly simple...planes don't travel at 500mph at near ground level and then melt into buildings without leaving any wreckage..only a shill or a complete dumbass would believe that...next question
actually - perhaps only a "complete dumbass" would make such ridiculous claims. why on earth do you NPT sheeple keep on repeating this kind of nonsense as if it's true?
the planes hit the wtc at a height of roughly 1000 ft.
here is a video that shows a boeing 757 flying at 350 knots (ie more than 400mph), 100 feet above a runway at an airport that is 23 feet above sea level, and then ascending rapidly to 8000 feet with consumate ease.
amazing what such a large passenger jet can actually do....
I also don't see what's so strange about a plane going at that speed crashing through the external facade of the wtc - as anticipated by the building's designers.
and it did leave wreckage - although the fact that not much discernable wreckage was found might have something to do with the fact that the whole building was blown to bits an hour later....
mason-free party wrote:
ps..many cases of planes crashing into mountains at high altitude leaving plenty of wreckage/bodies....activate any brain cells?
crashing into a solid mountain is rather different to crashing into a building that has an external frame, beyond which is almost entirely empty space.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
