9/11 Truth for Dummies: Why Near-Free Fall Speed Was Impossible Without Explosives

Discussion in '9/11' started by Munkle, Mar 29, 2014.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And who says this?
     
  2. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I say it is, in agreement with the NIST & AE911TRUTH

    and it can be documented.
     
  3. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And so?
     
  4. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    and if you refuse to recognize logic & reason,
    not my problem, keep believing in whatever it is that you believe.
    however, the facts are, that there is insufficient evidence to support
    the idea that 4 airliners were hijacked & used as weapons.
     
  5. Stndown

    Stndown Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    889
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So....your question was answered?
     
  6. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hardly....there is more than sufficient evidence of 4 hijackings and crashes,YOU just choose to ignore it.
     
  7. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    and after repeated requests for info,
    I get given pointers to a bin full of rubble
    as alleged proof that FLT93 ( or at least 95% of it )
    had been accounted for. Right, sure, u betcha.
     
  8. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm beginning to think NO proof will be good enough for you
     
  9. Stndown

    Stndown Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    889
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Goodness, that's exactly what I would have said about the Kean commission's cheerleaders.
     
  10. AlpinLuke

    AlpinLuke Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2014
    Messages:
    6,559
    Likes Received:
    589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A bit of humor ...
    Sooner or later, I'm sure, :wall: some conspiracy lover will come out sustaining that 9/11 didn't happen, it was all a fake video, full of special effects ... recorded on the moon, :omg:. No wait, Americans have never landed on Moon ...

    Humor a part, how many times has it happened that two big planes crashed into two high skyscrapers like on 9/11?

    Only one time ???? How is it possible? I note that here there are persons talking about what happened like they base their opinion on a wide statistical collection of data about similar events.

    Only one time ...

    Well, well ...

    A flying plane with fuel inside is a good flying bomb [during WW II Japanese kamikaze knew this very well ... and also US Navy!]. A "bomb" ... fuel tanks can explode too :flame:, they don't need an explosive device to react in that way to a tremendous crash.

    But a part this detail, I have to admit that after more than 12 years to find on the net a forum still so active about 9/11 is interesting and I enjoy following it ...
     
  11. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Welcome to the forum!
     
  12. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You mean the 9/11 commission report you don't like and are trying to change?
     
  13. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Historical note, the Kamikaze flights did include explosives, that is in addition to any explosive potential of the aircraft fuel, and also, there is an "apples/oranges" comparison happening here, the WW][ aircraft were gasoline powered whereas the aircraft allegedly used as weapons on 9/11 were kerosene powered. ( Kerosene, is less volatile than gasoline)

    The other assumption in your post is that slamming an airliner into a skyscraper would have to be then an absolute guarantee of total destruction of said skyscraper.

    Not to mention, have you actually examined the video of the alleged "FLT175" striking the south wall of the south tower?

    The arguments in pure physics (in addition to probability) have proven beyond any doubt that the "collapse" of WTC 1, 2 & 7 had to have additional energy from some source, either explosives, or?
     
  14. AlpinLuke

    AlpinLuke Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2014
    Messages:
    6,559
    Likes Received:
    589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Japanese kamikaze in WW II had also well more little planes [or are you sustaining that they used planes comparable as mass to the Boing 767? 86,000Kg - empty, up to 158,000Kg charged = 350,000lb:confusion:].

    Then, regarding the effects of the impacts on the towers, we should repeat [as a broken record] the little problem of the temperature reached by the burning fuel which affected the internal steel structures. Those structures were planned to resist to the impact of a plane, theoretically ...

    :oldman:Now, on the base of the experience of the Empire State Building [hit by a bomber! Do you remember?] the designers and the engineers projected the towers to resist to the crash of a plane. :fingerscrossed:

    But which kind of crash?

    A casual crash, may be with a landing plane, may be because of mist, with pilots managing to avoid a direct impact at high speed.

    Not a kamikaze action, with the pilots managing to obtain a direct impact on the structure at high speed [and with considerable amount of fuel on board].
     
  15. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How have they 'proven' this?Are we to assume the fires didn't prematurely set off ANY of the 'charges'?

    Also,just because it was refined kerosene,doesn't mean it didn't flash over when aeresolized by the crask...
     
  16. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Given the nature of the show,
    what most probably happened was that the hit
    was either a precision strike by a missile, or
    no aircraft at all was involved and the damage
    was the result of explosives + the fires were of a
    controlled nature, just like the fires in the "BackDraft"
    amusement park attraction.

    The mechanical technology to pull this off would be
    quite simple, organizing it and making sure that the
    people planting explosives had access to the building,
    that may ( or may not ) have been difficult, but not impossible.
     
  17. Stndown

    Stndown Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    889
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'd like for it to be complete, for one thing. True and honest would be good also. None of that applies to the Kean report though, in my opinion. Why would anybody be satisfied with something so incomplete, and full of obvious flaws, distortions and omissions? How in the world does that represent the truth?
     
  18. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not even a close explanation,It wasn't a 'missile'

    And the fires were NOT controlled....:roll: for even posting something so outrageous

    - - - Updated - - -

    You've just illustrated why nothing would satisfy you
     
  19. Stndown

    Stndown Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    889
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0

    The verifiable truth would satisfy me. I'm not much on blind trust.
     
  20. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Given your lack of evidence,I'd say you are.
     
  21. Stndown

    Stndown Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    889
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Back to the circular sarcasm/ridicule thing, once more. The evidence is highly subjective and incomplete, at any rate.
     
  22. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not nearly as incomplete as yours is

    And stop whining
     
  23. Stndown

    Stndown Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    889
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0

    The ridicule/insult, once more? Very tiresome (but then, I guess that's part of the objective?).

    The information IS incomplete. Big gaps in redacted or heavily edited information remain.
     
  24. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No ridicule/insult...and baloney,redacted documents are common,and no info was 'edited'
     
  25. Stndown

    Stndown Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    889
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What about Kean's own comments regarding the 'lack of cooperation' (amongst other comments) that he made about the whole inept investigation
     

Share This Page