No-planers: I challenge you to explain how all the videos and photos....

Discussion in '9/11' started by LogicallyYours, Jun 23, 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. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sorry, you're incorrect.
    They did collapse.
     
  2. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    and at least in your interpretation,
    not needing any help to cause the degree of destruction
    that was observed? Mass quantities of pulverized material
    etc.....
     
  3. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh, they were helped.
    See, they were hit by passenger jets, which caused structural damage. The fuel from those jets ignited fires across multiple floors which in turn further weakened the load bearing structure.

    Also: Gravity.
     
  4. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So a result that ordinarily would require weeks of careful planning
    and preparation, is achieved by an airliner crash & fire, is that what
    you think happened?
     
  5. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    19,031
    Likes Received:
    3,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No such careful planning and preperation was done over weeks.

    Such weeks of planning and preperation would be impossible without people noticing.

    Nothjing mysterious about a plane crash and resulting fires causing the collapse.
     
  6. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    May I address this one bit, it has been used many times over
    to justify the "no explosives" argument. How many of you
    readers of this forum have ever worked in the land of cubicles?
    periodically a memo is circulated that states the building
    ( wiring, plumbing, fire suppression system .... etc .... )
    will have to be worked on and trades people will be in to do the work and we have been instructed to give them space and let them work as they need to. in some instances, in places I personally have worked, the trades people had screened off a part of the office space and went to work cutting/grinding welding ( etc .... ) and it made noise & fumes but we office minions were instructed to let them do their work.
    The fact is that prior to the disaster of 9/11/2001, there had been an
    on-going elevator overhaul job going on and so the trades people would have had access to the elevator shafts & the interior of the central core of the building. prime location(s) for stashing explosives to bring down the building. The detonators could have been radio controlled devices, eliminating the need for stringing miles of cable to set off the explosives.

    The concept that the building just happened to be totally destroyed by a airliner crash & fires, makes as much sense as somebody rolling snake-eys 1,000,000 times in a row.
     
  7. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    19,031
    Likes Received:
    3,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not all of the offices were cubicles there were many different types of offices and rooms and even restaraunts and stores.

    Someone is always present at one time or another such as janitors night watch men etc. The types of explosives needed would have required those offices and rooms to be stripped bare and massive explosive devices attached directly to load bearing columns and members. Not just in one elevator shaft but throughout multiple floors.

    Radio controlled detonators would never have been used by any professional for the simple reason that it would have been too easy for someone else with a radio to accidentally trigger the explosives prematurely.

    Either way it is irrelevant not one shred of evidence for such explosives or preperation exists so everything you believe is fictional speculation.

    The buildings were never totally destroyed and the collapse from the crash and fire makes perfectly good sense.

    Especially in the absolute and complete absence of any other cause
     
  8. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Lets examine that one shall we, produce a picture of ground zero
    that has more than 1% of either tower still standing?
    can you do it, you are so interested in showing me wrong,
    produce the pix..... please.
     
  9. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    19,031
    Likes Received:
    3,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your standard of one % is subjective twist.

    TOTALLY means TOTALLY as in zero % remaining, not .1 % or less remaining. If even . 0000000001 % remains it was not TOTAL
     
  10. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Argument from incredulity. And excessive verbosity.
     
  11. saultrain

    saultrain New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2014
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The plane was traveling faster than the stress wave that would normally propagate throughout the entire airframe.
     
  12. saultrain

    saultrain New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2014
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Interpreting the Boeing-767 Deceleration During Impact with the WTC Tower: Center of Mass Versus Tail-end Motion, and Instantaneous Versus Average Velocity By Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins
     
  13. saultrain

    saultrain New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2014
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think this incident relates:

    [​IMG]
    Why, in the official story, were the cops so sure that it was a robber's footwear that impacted the man's head? The surveillance video could have been altered with a fake, animated, CGI boot. Or perhaps it was a holographic boot that eyewitnesses saw stomping him, projected from an anti-gravity orb, and the marks on his forehead were made from energy beams from space.
    The official story just doesn't add up. I've had my head stomped on by my wife many times and it never left a mark like that.


    [​IMG]
     
  14. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Can you support that with engineering data?
     
  15. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
  16. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Physics.
     
  17. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,489
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have seen it with your own eyes with the Jet crashing into a cement wall. Why would you doubt your own eyes? Oh wait, you are a truther.
     
  18. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just to add to the discussion here,
    the test with the F4 intentionally destroyed
    involved the aircraft being rammed into a target
    perfectly perpendicular to said target.
    in the case of "FLT11" & "FLT175" the airliners
    could not possibly have been perfectly perpendicular
    to the wall of the WTC, therefore asymmetrical forces
    upon the aircraft, and with all that, the aircraft allegedly
    kept its shape on the way in.

    If as in the article cited the aircraft went from the alleged
    590 mph speed to aprox 540 mph by the time the tail is
    disappearing into the building. and that is about 12 g
    for the force upon the aircraft, and I submit to you that
    having a 12 g load on a commercial airliner that has already
    been structurally compromised by striking a wall, is sufficient
    to cause total catastrophic failure of the fuselage, that is wings
    falling off before having a chance to penetrate the wall ( etc.... )
     
  19. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,489
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not aware of what a crush zone is?
     
  20. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    in reference to automobile safety, yes,
    however, the commercial airliner in question
    did NOT have a specific engineered "crush zone"
    in the fuselage to absorb impact force. The fact
    is that the fuselage, once compromised by the initial
    impact into the tower wall, would be liable to do anything
    at all including split open, spilling the contents of the luggage
    compartment ( tons of stuff! ) onto the street below.

    Given the fact that the jet engines extended forward of
    the leading edge of the wing, the engine would be the first
    thing to contact the wall before the leading edge of the wing.
    Why didn't then, the wing break off because of asymmetrical
    forces applied to the wing as the jet engine struck the wall?
     
  21. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thank you for the info, ( new to me at least ... )
    I tend to focus on the physical aspects of the crime
    because that is ( at least IMHO ) easier to nail down
    parts of it with identifiable facts, there are a lot of other
    bits that get debated intensely ( that is WHO was involved,
    & why ) but that often ends in one side telling the other that
    somebody must be terribly Anti-Semitic around here and that
    is a very bad thing.... oops!

    I can agree that this is a very deep subject and
    a simplistic accusation of "anti-semite" doesn't half
    cover the ground that needs to be in order to explain
    what was going on to create the disaster of 9/11/2001.
     
  22. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I stand corrected,
    thank U very much.
     
  23. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,489
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure they do, it is called aluminum which is very crush-able.
     
  24. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So why didn't we observe the whole aircraft making like an accordion?
     
  25. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,489
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You didn't see that with the jet into the cement either.
     

Share This Page