Discussion in '9/11' started by PPP, Feb 24, 2013.
oops,major blunder there by the government in their coverup.hahahahahahahahahaaaa
You're most definitely the king of the reach-around in this forum.
well sound advise but the day he follows it, is the day I become president of the united states.hee hee
where's the funny? You always end your asinine posts with a lol or hehe which are so out of place based on the context. Are you like this when you speak to someone in person?
Well, NIST is not a report, either. Want to try again?
NIST....isn't NIST that government agency that said the fire in WTC7 only had a "small probability" of causing the collapse??
You're making that up...
Wrong again, RtWing.
Because the questioner is an obvious twoofer nutjob to be brushed aside like a blowie looking for a place to lay eggs.
You lose credibility every timme you post that. It demonstrates that you have not read any of the reports that did not come out of some Nazi fool's underwear. The engine was damaged on the way into the target striking a light pole.
Oh wait.....that was in the official "commission" report. My apologies.
No problem. It's rare that you get a claim correct.
Thanks man. I knew YOU would understand that.
(from post #160)
Leftysergeant is misrepresenting his original statement to mislead those who don't acutally look at what he said. Here's the link to what he said.
Anyone who reads what you really said will know that you don't even believe your own arguments.
You have yet to show why I shouldn't. Let's see YOUR science.
I did not say that it was normal jet exhaust. I said that it was normal in the context of emissions from a damaged engine. Notice that I have stated several times that I base this on my experience watching aircraft with damaged engines landing on several occassions, and from observing smoke emitters at air shows. <<<mod edit/off topic>>>
Everybody please actually click on the link and see what leftysergeant really said.
He's misrepresenting what happened to mislead those viewers who don't take the time to click on the link and look at what he said.
It has been known almost from the day after the attack that the plane was trailing smoke after it hit the light poles. I should not have had to include that every time that I post anything regarding the smoke trail.
Further, it is obvious from the shot from the other camera that it was a smoke trail. That was why some idiots saw a missile.
But it was not smoke from a missile. Smoke from a missile is not swirled about in the vortex that forms under the wings of an aircraft. It expands in all directions.
<<<mod edit/flame bait>>>
and what does your professional experience tell you about what would happen to a wing when hits a pole at 300 knots?
Same thing that happens to a Kenworth when it hits a light pole at 50mph. The pole snaps off at ground level the way they are designed and the Kenworth continues on with some structural damage. DERP!
The same thing that happens to a hot knife when it goes through butter.
finally you guys got one right.
nothing happens to the knife and the butter is sliced into 2 pieces
I don't believe you can actually guard a parameter with a wire fence
If goes on unimpeded, successfully slicing through many more poles without hitting any part of the ground, still able to hover just above the grass top, and then disappear never to be seen again? Poles fall down that aren't actually in the supposed flight path? Oooooh...wait....I know, I know. It keeps going right on through concrete and steel, and then evaporates?
Separate names with a comma.