Hard facts that there is no way around

Discussion in '9/11' started by MkStevenson, Jul 15, 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. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    so is it not how its described, that is the total structural failure
    would have not happened except for the airliner crashes & fires?
    therefore the root cause of the "collapse" event was the crash(?)
    no?
     
  2. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No. MOD EDIT - Off Topic
     
  3. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just a little note for this thread, I'm rather sick of seeing the
    IS SO
    IS NOT
    IS SO .....
    etc ... ad infinitum, ad nausum arguments

    there are bits of fundamental physics that point to there having been NO hijacked airliners at all, maybe the things that struck the towers ( etc.... ) were modified military aircraft, missiles, (or? ) but most certainly NOT airliners. and the fall of the towers & 7 ..... give me a break! controlled demolition.

    Several things are very much smoking guns here, the manner of the "collapse" events for the towers & 7, the fact that the aircraft bits were never accounted for ( a few snap-shots of alleged aircraft bits does NOT constitute an accounting ) the logistics of the whole bit with hijacked airliners being flow far outside not only their "normal" operating parameters but far exceeding the physical limitations of the airframes. + the improbable PENTAGON hit, if the hijackers didn't know about the composition of the PENTAGON wall, why would they strike an unknown when it would be just as feasible to fly the airliner in the front door of the PENTAGON or even drop the airliner on top of the building.
    So many things are just plain WRONG about the official explanation.
    it is really the BIG LIE.
     
  4. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Well, some of us are a little sick of people making claims, implying they'll back them up, then running away from the conversation. So consider it even.
     
  5. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I notice that you didn't quote ALL of post 103,
    you don't have a rebuttal for it?
     
  6. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The rest is just another argument from incredulity. Same regurgitation of incorrect assumptions with no evidence to back it up.
     
  7. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    you allege, "incorrect assumptions" however what do YOU know about flying an aircraft far beyond its design limits + controlling it well enough to have made the hit to the WTC tower(s) Not to mention the hit to the PENTAGON, If the "FLT77" aircraft was alleged to have been out of control, the odds are that the flight path would not have been what it was, the radar operators commented that the flight path looked like a military plane because no civilian airliner would do what was observed, also what are the odds of the aircraft, with a hijacker pilot at the controls, & fighting for control, crashing before getting to the Pentagon? So we are left with, it was a lucky shot that the hijackers could hit anything at all.... make that 3X ....
     
  8. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You still haven't shown that the rate of speed was 'far beyond its design limits'. You are arguing facts not in evidence.
     
  9. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Major problem here is that some people do not want to recognize the difference between flying at 35,000 ft and flying at <1,000 ft
    there is a VERY serious difference with limitations upon max speed and also because of the factor of drag increasing by the cube of the velocity the aircraft would be subject to huge drag on even attempting the speed alleged for "FLT175" .....
     
  10. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Source this claim.
     
  11. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How about Science 101 and also some common sense
    give me a break!

    do you intend to negate the fact that air resistance increases by the cube of the velocity? do you not see that the air is denser at low altitude than at 35,000 ft ? how do you intend to support the argument that an airliner can fly as fast at low altitude as at 35,000 ft?
     
  12. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Can't source your claim, then? Didn't think so.
     
  13. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I just sourced it, and you can't see that(?)
     
  14. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, you threw out your opinion, which isn't evidence.
     
  15. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    so do you view it strictly as my opinion that the air at 35,000 ft is much less dense than at <1,000 ft? do you consider that its only my opinion that resistance in air increases by the cube of the velocity?
    What?
     
  16. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Prove that the planes could have reached the velocity they did just before crashing. Show your math.

    Not opinion or speculation, show the evidence.
     

Share This Page