I think the principal is called INTERTIA, and a Boeing 767, travelling at over 575MPH, running into a stationary building, has quite a bit of it, to say the least, even to the very wing tips themselves.
Inertia (the resistance an object has to a change in its state of motion) is actually only dependent on mass, not velocity. Also it does not matter which object (the plane or the building) is moving at ~500MPH, the results would be the same. Certainly an airplane and a building would have a lot of inertia. But the Laws of Physics need to work hand-in-hand.
Newton's Third Law of Motion:
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
An aluminum shell can't glide through steel columns like it glides through the air. The steel is going to push back at the aluminum with the same force the aluminum hits the steel with. Which is stronger?
It just goes to show you that a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing, especially by a shill.
Perhaps, CB_Brooklyn, you should try out Newtons 3rd law and stand in front of a truck travelling at 60mph. By your assumptions, your body should resist the forces placed upon it by the truck with an automatic equal and opposite force. Somehow though, I'm not sure you'll be alive to see whether this is true. Just to make the experiment more lifelike, perhaps you should get together with the other shills and stand in a line holding hands (to replicate a lattice wall). I still hazzard a guess that one or all of you will not resist that truck very well.
Please also bear in mind that steel is 3 times stronger than aluminium but also 3 times heavier. If you take an aluminium bar which is 3 times bigger than a steel bar then they will be as strong as each other. Now go and think about that carefully in relation to the relative sizes of the plane and the outer wall. (Remember 14" versus 2113")
Also remember that the steel lattice work was not homogenous. It was made of pre-fab pieces held together with bolts. These bolts were even smaller when compared to the size of the plane and would have offered little resistance to such a massive body, a bit like your hands in the truck analogy above.
I see what you are saying about the velocity part of the momentum equation such that the wall is effectively travelling at 500mph towards the plane but perhaps you should calculate the momentum of the outer wall. If you did, you will find that the momentum of the wall (and you can only include the mass of steel work directly hit by the plane) is a tiny fraction of the momentum of the plane. Now, again, go back to my truck analogy above and work out why you are talking sh*t.
I notice that Andrew Johnson remains silent on this issue. As I've always said, when questions get tough, AJ runs away.
As ever, this is a case of no-planes for no-brains!
To assist any newbies in understanding this, and also to show that the James C character above doesn't know the difference between his a$$ and a hole in the ground, here's some information from a high school physics lesson. (I added emphasis for certain key points.) The answer is so obvious by simply applying Newton's 3rd law that I won't even bother pasting it:
================================
Newton's Third Law of Motion:
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object.The direction of the force on the first object is opposite to the direction of the force on the second object. Forces always come in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs.
Check Your Understanding...
While driving down the road, an unfortunate bug strikes the windshield of a bus. Quite obviously, this is a case of Newton's third law of motion. The bug hit the windshield and the windshield hit the bug. Which of the two forces is greater: the force on the bug or the force on the bus?
================================
in a way I'm glad that people like James C are around. His posts just encourage me to reexamine the basic physical laws, which just reaffirms the reality of tv-fakery!
in a way I'm glad that people like James C are around. His posts just encourage me to reexamine the basic physical laws, which just reaffirms the reality of tv-fakery!
So where's the proof? Physics isn't intended to be applied as metaphor, its intended as a mathematical truth.
So prove us all wrong, do the math, and prove that the plane couldn't possibly enter the building. Is that really so hard? _________________ "Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki
While driving down the road, an unfortunate bug strikes the windshield of a bus. Quite obviously, this is a case of Newton's third law of motion. The bug hit the windshield and the windshield hit the bug. Which of the two forces is greater: the force on the bug or the force on the bus?
This gets more bizarre by the day. The fact that CB_Brooklyn appreciates one aspect of Newton's 3rd law but fails to understand it's true relevance in this case is most weird.
Answer: the forces are the same.....
Problem!!.....but the bug has been splatted and the yet the windscreen remains intact.
Ugh!!!... what's going on.
Oh yes I get it now. The bug's body is small, lightweight and made of animal tissue which is relatively soft. The windscreen is large, heavy and very tough and therefore has greater momentum since momentum = mass x velocity. Despite there being equal forces, the bug made no impact on the state of the windscreen.
I guess that's similar to the behaviour of the planes which hit the twin towers. Their size, mass, huge momentum and construction made them stronger on impact than the relatively tiny steel columns and even smaller bolts holding them together. No wonder they broke through so easily.
Then again some people claim CGI was used but they can never account for the amazing plane shaped holes in each facade. What a joke!
I'd forget physics if I were you, you obviously don't understand it. To make statements like steel is stronger than aluminium is wrong unless you discuss what sizes of steel and aluminium you are referring. To make statements like Newton's 3rd law proves that the facade of the towers would resist all forces placed upon it by the planes is plainly absurd when you systematicallty ignore the relative sizes and construction methods of each - a bit like the bug analogy above.
in a way I'm glad that people like James C are around. His posts just encourage me to reexamine the basic physical laws, which just reaffirms the reality of tv-fakery!
So where's the proof? Physics isn't intended to be applied as metaphor, its intended as a mathematical truth.
So prove us all wrong, do the math, and prove that the plane couldn't possibly enter the building. Is that really so hard?
First, I've already pointed out in another thread (possibly in response to you) that the "proof" you reference above mean nothing. It does not explain, for starters:
There's no crushing, no bending, no twisting
* Tail does not snap off
* Fuel filled wings and engines do not explode on impact
* Wing tips (which are swept back 35 degrees) sawing through structural steel
* The building self-heals itself before the explosion
And second, it is crude for individuals (such as you) to disrespect those who died on 9/11 by discouraging people from looking at evidence.
in a way I'm glad that people like James C are around. His posts just encourage me to reexamine the basic physical laws, which just reaffirms the reality of tv-fakery!
So where's the proof? Physics isn't intended to be applied as metaphor, its intended as a mathematical truth.
So prove us all wrong, do the math, and prove that the plane couldn't possibly enter the building. Is that really so hard?
First, I've already pointed out in another thread (possibly in response to you) that the "proof" you reference above mean nothing. It does not explain, for starters:
There's no crushing, no bending, no twisting
* Tail does not snap off
* Fuel filled wings and engines do not explode on impact
* Wing tips (which are swept back 35 degrees) sawing through structural steel
* The building self-heals itself before the explosion
And second, it is crude for individuals (such as you) to disrespect those who died on 9/11 by discouraging people from looking at evidence.
To see any crushing bending or twisting on video you would need a high speed camera trained on the impact site, as it is you are looking at greatly enlarged and thus very degraded images. It is your failure to appreciate that that leads you to make these comments.
Why should the tail snap off?
It takes a measurable time for the fuel tanks to rupture, the fuel to spray out and then ignite, the plane was inside the building in a fraction of a second, travelling at the speed it was.
There is nothing strange about aluminium cutting through 1/4 inch steel plate if it has enough momentum, as discussed.
Of course the building does not self-heal, see first comment.
First, I've already pointed out in another thread (possibly in response to you) that the "proof" you reference above mean nothing. It does not explain, for starters:
There's no crushing, no bending, no twisting
* Tail does not snap off
* Fuel filled wings and engines do not explode on impact
* Wing tips (which are swept back 35 degrees) sawing through structural steel
* The building self-heals itself before the explosion
For all your pantie pulling you don't actually take the opportunity to post your own contrary evidence. Where have I seen that tactic before?
Quote:
And second, it is crude for individuals (such as you) to disrespect those who died on 9/11 by discouraging people from looking at evidence.
For the record, I'm pretty sure this under-the-belt is in response to me voicing disgust at CB_Brooklyn posting images of a Wily Coyote shaped hole in the WTC.
Unfortunately for you, it's plain to see that my entire post was actually encouraging you to post evidence for NPT. Therefore the only person guilty of "discouraging people from looking at evidence", is you, by posting that insult in reply to my request for evidence. _________________ "Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki
While driving down the road, an unfortunate bug strikes the windshield of a bus. Quite obviously, this is a case of Newton's third law of motion. The bug hit the windshield and the windshield hit the bug. Which of the two forces is greater: the force on the bug or the force on the bus?
This gets more bizarre by the day. The fact that CB_Brooklyn appreciates one aspect of Newton's 3rd law but fails to understand it's true relevance in this case is most weird.
Answer: the forces are the same.....
Problem!!.....but the bug has been splatted and the yet the windscreen remains intact.
Ugh!!!... what's going on.
Oh yes I get it now. The bug's body is small, lightweight and made of animal tissue which is relatively soft. The windscreen is large, heavy and very tough and therefore has greater momentum since momentum = mass x velocity. Despite there being equal forces, the bug made no impact on the state of the windscreen.
I guess that's similar to the behaviour of the planes which hit the twin towers. Their size, mass, huge momentum and construction made them stronger on impact than the relatively tiny steel columns and even smaller bolts holding them together. No wonder they broke through so easily.
Then again some people claim CGI was used but they can never account for the amazing plane shaped holes in each facade. What a joke!
I'd forget physics if I were you, you obviously don't understand it. To make statements like steel is stronger than aluminium is wrong unless you discuss what sizes of steel and aluminium you are referring. To make statements like Newton's 3rd law proves that the facade of the towers would resist all forces placed upon it by the planes is plainly absurd when you systematicallty ignore the relative sizes and construction methods of each - a bit like the bug analogy above.
Your comment about the building resisting all forces insinuates that I claimed that's what should have happened. You seem to think like a bug. I never said that's what should have happened. Debating with you and idiots like Fallicous and thermite is not getting anywhere and I will not waste anymore time doing so.
While driving down the road, an unfortunate bug strikes the windshield of a bus. Quite obviously, this is a case of Newton's third law of motion. The bug hit the windshield and the windshield hit the bug. Which of the two forces is greater: the force on the bug or the force on the bus?
This gets more bizarre by the day. The fact that CB_Brooklyn appreciates one aspect of Newton's 3rd law but fails to understand it's true relevance in this case is most weird.
Answer: the forces are the same.....
Problem!!.....but the bug has been splatted and the yet the windscreen remains intact.
Ugh!!!... what's going on.
Oh yes I get it now. The bug's body is small, lightweight and made of animal tissue which is relatively soft. The windscreen is large, heavy and very tough and therefore has greater momentum since momentum = mass x velocity. Despite there being equal forces, the bug made no impact on the state of the windscreen.
I guess that's similar to the behaviour of the planes which hit the twin towers. Their size, mass, huge momentum and construction made them stronger on impact than the relatively tiny steel columns and even smaller bolts holding them together. No wonder they broke through so easily.
Then again some people claim CGI was used but they can never account for the amazing plane shaped holes in each facade. What a joke!
I'd forget physics if I were you, you obviously don't understand it. To make statements like steel is stronger than aluminium is wrong unless you discuss what sizes of steel and aluminium you are referring. To make statements like Newton's 3rd law proves that the facade of the towers would resist all forces placed upon it by the planes is plainly absurd when you systematicallty ignore the relative sizes and construction methods of each - a bit like the bug analogy above.
Momentum....
The huge momentum the "plane" had doesn't explain an aluminum plane smoothly gliding through a steel and concrete structure. It still violates Newton's Laws of Motion. Sorry!
The huge momentum the "plane" had doesn't explain an aluminum plane smoothly gliding through a steel and concrete structure. It still violates Newton's Laws of Motion. Sorry!
Yet you still refuse to post the equation that would unequivocally prove your theory to be true.
Come on now. What you state is that a big boeing wouldn't fully enter the towers without visibly slowing or breaking up, right? Please post a calculation which demonstrates this, and if you won't, please explain why you think mathematical proof to be unnecessary. _________________ "Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki
While driving down the road, an unfortunate bug strikes the windshield of a bus. Quite obviously, this is a case of Newton's third law of motion. The bug hit the windshield and the windshield hit the bug. Which of the two forces is greater: the force on the bug or the force on the bus?
This gets more bizarre by the day. The fact that CB_Brooklyn appreciates one aspect of Newton's 3rd law but fails to understand it's true relevance in this case is most weird.
Answer: the forces are the same.....
Problem!!.....but the bug has been splatted and the yet the windscreen remains intact.
Ugh!!!... what's going on.
Oh yes I get it now. The bug's body is small, lightweight and made of animal tissue which is relatively soft. The windscreen is large, heavy and very tough and therefore has greater momentum since momentum = mass x velocity. Despite there being equal forces, the bug made no impact on the state of the windscreen.
I guess that's similar to the behaviour of the planes which hit the twin towers. Their size, mass, huge momentum and construction made them stronger on impact than the relatively tiny steel columns and even smaller bolts holding them together. No wonder they broke through so easily.
Then again some people claim CGI was used but they can never account for the amazing plane shaped holes in each facade. What a joke!
I'd forget physics if I were you, you obviously don't understand it. To make statements like steel is stronger than aluminium is wrong unless you discuss what sizes of steel and aluminium you are referring. To make statements like Newton's 3rd law proves that the facade of the towers would resist all forces placed upon it by the planes is plainly absurd when you systematicallty ignore the relative sizes and construction methods of each - a bit like the bug analogy above.
Momentum....
The huge momentum the "plane" had doesn't explain an aluminum plane smoothly gliding through a steel and concrete structure. It still violates Newton's Laws of Motion. Sorry!
Which still confirms that you do not understand Newton's 3rd law. By your reasoning, nothing would ever suffer damage if it is hit by another object of equal size since each would cancel the applied force. How many high speed car crashes have you ever seen where no damage has occured?
Besides, only when the video footage is slowed right down does it appear to glide into the building. Watch the opening credits of Loose Change to see the south tower being hit. It doesn't glide in, it punches or smacks its way through very hard and with masses of energy, showering the streets below with debris and fire.
Besides, only when the video footage is slowed right down does it appear to glide into the building. Watch the opening credits of Loose Change to see the south tower being hit. It doesn't glide in, it punches or smacks its way through very hard and with masses of energy, showering the streets below with debris and fire.
James, I think you will find that the opening credits of 'Loose Change' depicts the impact of the North Tower and there is no plane there, it is a missile. You have a plane burned into your mind by a hypnotic mantra of an equally brain tricked mainstream media. Please refer back to your copy of Loose Change, take some deep breaths. roll the dvd and find the plane. I will tell you now, you will not find one, you will only distinguish a blurred, smudgy object. And a missile. That is all.
Besides, only when the video footage is slowed right down does it appear to glide into the building. Watch the opening credits of Loose Change to see the south tower being hit. It doesn't glide in, it punches or smacks its way through very hard and with masses of energy, showering the streets below with debris and fire.
James, I think you will find that the opening credits of 'Loose Change' depicts the impact of the North Tower and there is no plane there, it is a missile. You have a plane burned into your mind by a hypnotic mantra of an equally brain tricked mainstream media. Please refer back to your copy of Loose Change, take some deep breaths. roll the dvd and find the plane. I will tell you now, you will not find one, you will only distinguish a blurred, smudgy object. And a missile. That is all.
Well my copy of Loose Change has a very dramatic shot of the south tower being struck (below). This sequence runs during the initial menu option. It is very close and detailed and clearly shows the plane entering the building.
And yes, I am aware of the careful editing which has been made by the disinfo team to remove the plane as shown below. Not hard to do, just cut the nano-second portion of video which has the plane in it. The sudden colour change in the video just before the explosion happens proves this. This colour change is not seen in the video above with the plane in it. You even see the tail section entering the tower as the explosion starts which obviously couldn't be edited out properly, just use the pause button if you don't believe me.
Once upon a time it did to me. These days it looks like a missile. There is nothing on that footage that even slightly resembles a plane, it's completely halucinatory.
Once upon a time it did to me. These days it looks like a missile. There is nothing on that footage that even slightly resembles a plane, it's completely halucinatory.
Uhmmmm......the noise, size, wings, tail fin, shadow cast on the tower. Looks like it could easily be a plane. Certainly isn't an escaped flying pig from a Pink Floyd concert!
I notice that you still ignore making comments about the clip I posted.
Certainly isn't an escaped flying pig from a Pink Floyd concert!
It might as well be. James, this is a still from a DVD. This looks like a missile.
Here are some more stills and they do actually look more like that Pink Floyd flying pig that you mentioned. Either that or a giant seagull high on mescaline.
when a blurred blob hits a building no one can say what it is 100% for sure.
i admit i cannot make out if it is a plane, but i'd also be fair with my observation and say i cannot make out if it is a missle either.
i certainly can not prove it one way or another with that footage and so i would'nt.
i would think what benefits us the most, having to prove the impossible due to footage like that, or let there be planes as its one less banana skin. if there were no planes it was their lie not ours why would we need to prove it?
"you cannot do anything about it there were no planes and your evidence is wrong because your saying there were planes" "oops sir it was us who said they were planes" "nonsense!"
if NPT is true its their lie they cannot admit to and so it would benefit us more to say there were planes where NPT cannot be proven, because it dosnt change anything. trying to prove it where it cannot be proven is stupid and gives media ammo to use against us and a banana skin for you to trip on.
there is tons of other evidence to prove 9/11 didnt happen how we were told, why try to prove something that may be true or false from a blurred blob hitting a building.
when a blurred blob hits a building no one can say what it is 100% for sure.
i admit i cannot make out if it is a plane, but i'd also be fair with my observation and say i cannot make out if it is a missle either.
i certainly can not prove it one way or another with that footage and so i would'nt.
i would think what benefits us the most, having to prove the impossible due to footage like that, or let there be planes as its one less banana skin. if there were no planes it was their lie not ours why would we need to prove it?
"you cannot do anything about it there were no planes and your evidence is wrong because your saying there were planes" "oops sir it was us who said they were planes" "nonsense!"
if NPT is true its their lie they cannot admit to and so it would benefit us more to say there were planes where NPT cannot be proven, because it dosnt change anything. trying to prove it where it cannot be proven is stupid and gives media ammo to use against us and a banana skin for you to trip on.
there is tons of other evidence to prove 9/11 didnt happen how we were told, why try to prove something that may be true or false from a blurred blob hitting a building.
by saying there were planes if there were not leaves a no win situation in defense. you would'nt beable to prove there were planes but wouldnt beable to deny it either.
think about it.
on the other hand if there were planes and they could prove there were planes and we said there were none, ONE BIG GIGANTIC BANANA SKIN TO CRUSH THE MOVEMENT!.
which one is more sensible to believe?
sorry for the double post the internet is slow today and i must of pressed submit twice because it didnt seem to work the first time.
by saying there were planes if there were not leaves a no win situation in defense. you would'nt beable to prove there were planes but wouldnt beable to deny it either.
think about it.
on the other hand if there were planes and they could prove there were planes and we said there were none, ONE BIG GIGANTIC BANANA SKIN TO CRUSH THE MOVEMENT!.
which one is more sensible to believe?
I get what you are saying Marky and agree with 90% of it but by proving there were no planes would cancel out all of that jet fuel bo-llocks which takes up 99.9% of the 9/11 Truthers time.
by saying there were planes if there were not leaves a no win situation in defense. you would'nt beable to prove there were planes but wouldnt beable to deny it either.
think about it.
on the other hand if there were planes and they could prove there were planes and we said there were none, ONE BIG GIGANTIC BANANA SKIN TO CRUSH THE MOVEMENT!.
which one is more sensible to believe?
I get what you are saying Marky and agree with 90% of it but by proving there were no planes would cancel out all of that jet fuel bo-llocks which takes up 99.9% of the 9/11 Truthers time.
Could planes and jet fuel bring down the twin towers? No
Could a missile with an unknown explosive force? Of course.
THIS is our ace in the hole? _________________ "Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki
1. we think planes and there were planes=no problem
2. we think planes and there were no planes=no problem
plus they cannot say there were no planes or they give the game away making it hard to prove there were planes which goes in our favour if push came to shove.
3. we think no planes when there were no planes= ??????
this would be a case of how good the evidence is to convince people.
also it is uncertain how many people would believe us who are just on the brink of waking up as it would go against their belief and what they saw ie: planes hitting the towers. resulting in a lot lower following and support and ammo for the media to ridicule meaning any support would be uncertain to get a new investigastion in the first place.
4. we think no planes when there were planes=very big and dangerous problem
if this is the reality then to start with you get the ridicule and less support because people just dont believe it after seeing the planes hit on the news.
and then at a time of their choosing after already taking a media bashing they release the proof of planes and uk truth movement will never be taken seriously again.
if i was a NPT'er i know which one i'd believe for now as coverage and promotion of the movement is more important at this moment in time, only support will result in a new investigastion not ridicule or people not taking us seriously.
i just hope your all aware how this theory can be more damaging than good even if it is true.(which at the moment i dont think it is but im still keeping an open mind to the possibility).
The huge momentum the "plane" had doesn't explain an aluminum plane smoothly gliding through a steel and concrete structure. It still violates Newton's Laws of Motion. Sorry!
Yet you still refuse to post the equation that would unequivocally prove your theory to be true.
Come on now. What you state is that a big boeing wouldn't fully enter the towers without visibly slowing or breaking up, right? Please post a calculation which demonstrates this, and if you won't, please explain why you think mathematical proof to be unnecessary.
If mathematical proof were possible it would have been done already by experts. Where's the mathematical proof of controlled demolition? There is none, so why do you believe it? I'll answer that for you: because it makes sense to you. And when you look at the TV-Fakery evidence for a long enough time with an open mind (which is what us "truthers" are supposed to have) you'll see it to. I'm not claiming to have seen it right away, it took time for me too.
The huge momentum the "plane" had doesn't explain an aluminum plane smoothly gliding through a steel and concrete structure. It still violates Newton's Laws of Motion. Sorry!
Yet you still refuse to post the equation that would unequivocally prove your theory to be true.
Come on now. What you state is that a big boeing wouldn't fully enter the towers without visibly slowing or breaking up, right? Please post a calculation which demonstrates this, and if you won't, please explain why you think mathematical proof to be unnecessary.
If mathematical proof were possible it would have been done already by experts. Where's the mathematical proof of controlled demolition? There is none, so why do you believe it? I'll answer that for you: because it makes sense to you. And when you look at the TV-Fakery evidence for a long enough time with an open mind (which is what us "truthers" are supposed to have) you'll see it to. I'm not claiming to have seen it right away, it took time for me too.
While driving down the road, an unfortunate bug strikes the windshield of a bus. Quite obviously, this is a case of Newton's third law of motion. The bug hit the windshield and the windshield hit the bug. Which of the two forces is greater: the force on the bug or the force on the bus?
This gets more bizarre by the day. The fact that CB_Brooklyn appreciates one aspect of Newton's 3rd law but fails to understand it's true relevance in this case is most weird.
Answer: the forces are the same.....
Problem!!.....but the bug has been splatted and the yet the windscreen remains intact.
Ugh!!!... what's going on.
Oh yes I get it now. The bug's body is small, lightweight and made of animal tissue which is relatively soft. The windscreen is large, heavy and very tough and therefore has greater momentum since momentum = mass x velocity. Despite there being equal forces, the bug made no impact on the state of the windscreen.
I guess that's similar to the behaviour of the planes which hit the twin towers. Their size, mass, huge momentum and construction made them stronger on impact than the relatively tiny steel columns and even smaller bolts holding them together. No wonder they broke through so easily.
Then again some people claim CGI was used but they can never account for the amazing plane shaped holes in each facade. What a joke!
I'd forget physics if I were you, you obviously don't understand it. To make statements like steel is stronger than aluminium is wrong unless you discuss what sizes of steel and aluminium you are referring. To make statements like Newton's 3rd law proves that the facade of the towers would resist all forces placed upon it by the planes is plainly absurd when you systematicallty ignore the relative sizes and construction methods of each - a bit like the bug analogy above.
Momentum....
The huge momentum the "plane" had doesn't explain an aluminum plane smoothly gliding through a steel and concrete structure. It still violates Newton's Laws of Motion. Sorry!
Which still confirms that you do not understand Newton's 3rd law. By your reasoning, nothing would ever suffer damage if it is hit by another object of equal size since each would cancel the applied force. How many high speed car crashes have you ever seen where no damage has occured?
Besides, only when the video footage is slowed right down does it appear to glide into the building. Watch the opening credits of Loose Change to see the south tower being hit. It doesn't glide in, it punches or smacks its way through very hard and with masses of energy, showering the streets below with debris and fire.
I seriously recommend you cease TV-Fakery discussions because you are not seeing things clearly. Your "by your reasoning" comment above takes what I said completely out of context. In addition, for you to say that the "plane" didn't glide in shows that this just isn't your area. I don't wish to spend time responding to posts like the above anymore.
unless witnesses were on drugs on 9/11 i suggest not discussing tv fakery period. brainwashing maybe to make us imagine planes at the other two locations and the trauma of ot all but fakery dosnt explain witnesses who where there and nowhere near a t.v. or the plane shaped holes in the buildings plus debris.
when you can explain those three points scientifically without maybes and proberblys then some might listen a little harder. its easy to concentrate on tv fakery alone but you need to explain away all the things that go against it with evidence. witnesses and plane shaped holes suggest a planes was physically there and also the plane debris found on the street, explain..... (pulls out a cotton bud gives his ear a clean, cups his hand to the side of his ear and leans towards the screen).
unless witnesses were on drugs on 9/11 i suggest not discussing tv fakery period. brainwashing maybe to make us imagine planes at the other two locations and the trauma of ot all but fakery dosnt explain witnesses who where there and nowhere near a t.v. or the plane shaped holes in the buildings plus debris.
when you can explain those three points scientifically without maybes and proberblys then some might listen a little harder. its easy to concentrate on tv fakery alone but you need to explain away all the things that go against it with evidence. witnesses and plane shaped holes suggest a planes was physically there and also the plane debris found on the street, explain..... (pulls out a cotton bud gives his ear a clean, cups his hand to the side of his ear and leans towards the screen).
Thanks to all the websites around, people are waking up to TV-Fakery everyday. Witness reports have been explained away.
unless witnesses were on drugs on 9/11 i suggest not discussing tv fakery period. brainwashing maybe to make us imagine planes at the other two locations and the trauma of ot all but fakery dosnt explain witnesses who where there and nowhere near a t.v. or the plane shaped holes in the buildings plus debris.
when you can explain those three points scientifically without maybes and proberblys then some might listen a little harder. its easy to concentrate on tv fakery alone but you need to explain away all the things that go against it with evidence. witnesses and plane shaped holes suggest a planes was physically there and also the plane debris found on the street, explain..... (pulls out a cotton bud gives his ear a clean, cups his hand to the side of his ear and leans towards the screen).
Thanks to all the websites around, people are waking up to TV-Fakery everyday. Witness reports have been explained away.
you mean thanks to all the disinfo, as its still not proven and you have just avoided enlightening me with what you seem to know that i dont.
so i take it you cannot answer my questions straight out scientifically in anyway. nice one liner that proves NOTHING!
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
