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

And who says this?

 

I say it is, in agreement with the NIST & AE911TRUTH

and it can be documented.

 

And so?

 

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.

 

So....your question was answered?

 

Hardly....there is more than sufficient evidence of 4 hijackings and crashes,YOU just choose to ignore it.

 

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.

 

I'm beginning to think NO proof will be good enough for you

 

Goodness, that's exactly what I would have said about the Kean commission's cheerleaders.

 

A bit of humor ...
Sooner or later, I'm sure, 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, . 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 , 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 ...

 

Welcome to the forum!

 

You mean the 9/11 commission report you don't like and are trying to change?

 

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?

 

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].

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 ...

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.

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].

 

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...

 

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.

 

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?

 

Not even a close explanation,It wasn't a 'missile'

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

- - - Updated - - -

You've just illustrated why nothing would satisfy you

 

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

 

Given your lack of evidence,I'd say you are.

 

Back to the circular sarcasm/ridicule thing, once more. The evidence is highly subjective and incomplete, at any rate.

 

Not nearly as incomplete as yours is

And stop whining

 

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.

 

No ridicule/insult...and baloney,redacted documents are common,and no info was 'edited'

 

What about Kean's own comments regarding the 'lack of cooperation' (amongst other comments) that he made about the whole inept investigation