Putin To Release Evidence Exposing 9/11 As An Inside Job

Science 101 does not support you it refutes you

 

You say that because you are yet another victim of the
psychological warfare.

 

Maybe it was heavy magic.

 

Psychology canot change scientific fact and scientific fact refutes you.

 

Slurp, slurp?? LOL

 

Mind your manners,no slurping at the table,heathen....

Hey,it worked for my dad...

 

Stand up, now.

 

You keep alleging that there is good science behind the "proof"
that there were any hijacked airliners at all, however, where is
this science? can You personally cite an example that YOU
personally understand and can defend without having to reference
"experts".

 

When we have phone calls from passengers to their relatives from those planes and a city full of witnesses who saw and filmed them crash we have all the evidence we need.

Exctly what OTHER " scientific " evidence are you looking for?

 

something that explains how it is that an airliner can "melt" into the side of a skyscraper like a hot knife through butter. also it has never been proven that is the claim that "FLT175" attained the speed of 590 mph before striking the south tower. These are but two of the as yet unanswered questions about 9/11/2001.

 

Actually it has but you just continue to deny it.

 

No one ever claimed it melted into the side of the building so once again you are merely dreaming up false claims.

 

So you consider the video record
that is the pictures that show the south wall of the south tower being penetrated by what is alleged to be "FLT175" and you see nothing amiss at all about this?

 

There is nothing amiss about it and shows no melting

 

Even on the very day it happened, the talking heads on TV said that it looked just like "movie special effect" why would they say that?
and after, there are people who know video production very well,
and for that matter people with PHD after their names and they
question the validity of this "FLT175" scene.

 

Appealing to authority fallacy.

175 crashed: it did not melt.

 

the video of "FLT175" penetrating the wall,
has it making a smooth motion, just zoom, right into the wall
and not breaking up or loosing a wing or anything as it penetrates,
that is a rather good trick, don't you think?

 

Who says it didn't break up?

 

Back to this fiasco again, the allegation that the only breakage of the
aircraft would have happened inside the building and therefore not visible.
so in the case of jet engines that extend ahead of the leading edge of the wing, and so would strike the wall first, and since the jet engine is supported under the wing, the act of having the engine strike the wall would cause huge asymmetrical forces in the wing, and with this, you insist that there should not have been visible deformation of the aircraft outside of the building?
not to mention the total disappearance of the aircraft inside the building, pretty neat trick ..... or?

 

You're basing all of this on a low resolution video.

You are again arguing from incredulity.

 

Because people express themselves in many ways.

Kind of like someone descrbing a wedding as something out of a fairy tale. Which does not make a wedding fictional.

Millions of people have PHD's anyone can get one on line. No one with any evidence is questioning the validity of the FLT175 " scene "

Once again nothing is amiss about the images nothing melted and not one speck of evidence supports a conspiracy theory

 

So there isn't anything questionable about the events of
9/11/2001 because YOU say so? ..... or?
even if you can name a few dozen PHD types
who agree with you, there are an equal number who
will disagree with you. now what do you have?

 

There is sufficient resolution to know if a wing broke off the aircraft
or for that matter, did the alleged aircraft take 6 frames or more to
go from nose to tail in penetrating the wall? If the airliner was indeed
traveling at 590 mph, the max speed difference to not be noticed on
video ( 30 fps ) would be 125 mph, so with that in mind, if the airliner
were to loose 125 mph in speed over the length of the aircraft that works
out to 28 g of force, so, even stunt aircraft may be rated for 10 or 12 gs
but certainly not 28 gs and most certainly not a commercial airliner
capable of withstanding that sort of force, so the most likely thing to
see, for an airliner striking a wall as was alleged in the case of "FLT11"
and "FLT175" would be for the aircraft to break up, that is wings falling
off, tail separating from the rest of the aircraft (etc.... )
This is NOT "incredulity" it is factual evidence about how the physical
world works.

 

Again,there are no 'frames' on videotape..

 

You throw around numbers, but you aren't doing the math. Try again.