there was no moon landing .... discus

[Falmer]

Fruitcakes.

Yeah, good point.

 

[tezz79]

Do people really still believe a plane can fly straight through a skyscraper (including the wings) melt the re-inforced steel and send 3 buildings tumbling down, one as far as 1 km from the actual plane? Regardless of what a tv teaches you, I'm sure physics teaches more.
If Scientists can't explain 9/11 but the american media can, don't you think somethings up?

Smaller slower planes sank battleships in ww2, no cgi around then....... Or maybe there was but the reptilian rulers were keeping it out of the public domain

 

[Falmer]

Smaller slower planes sank battleships in ww2, no cgi around then....... Or maybe there was but the reptilian rulers were keeping it out of the public domain

And how on earth does that explain jet oil melting steel?
Also in ww11 did you know Hitler bombed his own buildings to ignite the war? He blamed the soviet russians for the 'terrorism, everyone in Germany believed it. Does that sound similar to anything you've seen on the news?

 

[tezz79]

And how on earth does that explain jet oil melting steel? Can you explain to me how steel melts thanks to airplanes?

Maybe it was hot, I could have sworn I saw fire

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

And how on earth does that explain jet oil melting steel? Can you explain to me how steel melts thanks to airplanes?

I suspect you do not want to hear. There was a very interesting progamme on the box about 9/11 conspiracy theorists - one obvious attribute was the unwillingness to listen to expert argument. Some did not appear to be open to their views being possibly changed by experts who knew their subject. My conclusion - Fruitcakes.

 

[Falmer]

I suspect you do not want to hear. There was a very interesting progamme on the box about 9/11 conspiracy theorists - one obvious attribute was the unwillingness to listen to expert argument. Some did not appear to be open to their views being possibly changed by experts who knew their subject. My conclusion - Fruitcakes.

So i'm the fruitcake for thinking jet oil can't melt steel? I'm the fruitcake because scientists claim 9/11 was impossible? hhmm?
As you know so much more than physics, what is your theory behind this?

 

[tezz79]

I suspect you do not want to hear. There was a very interesting progamme on the box about 9/11 conspiracy theorists - one obvious attribute was the unwillingness to listen to expert argument. Some did not appear to be open to their views being possibly changed by experts who knew their subject. My conclusion - Fruitcakes.

Experts as in people who know what they're talking about, unlike the little prick who made the loose change dvd's that falmer & Collinz would rather listen to

 

[tezz79]

So i'm the fruitcake for thinking jet oil can't melt steel? I'm the fruitcake because scientists claim 9/11 was impossible? hhmm?
As you know so much more than physics, what is your theory behind this?

But it's only the scientists you choose to listen to that say it's impossible

 

[colinz]

Maybe it was hot, I could have sworn I saw fire

I think the fire would have burned for more than an hour to melt the structural steel, (after the heat had penetrated the concrete & fire proofings) and the Boeing as well. (given that there is bugger all wreckage)
In fact the footage mainly shows black smoke, very little fire.

 

[beorhthelm]

Do people really still believe a plane can fly straight through a skyscraper (including the wings) melt the re-inforced steel and send 3 buildings tumbling down, one as far as 1 km from the actual plane? Regardless of what a tv teaches you, I'm sure physics teaches more.
If Scientists can't explain 9/11 but the american media can, don't you think somethings up?

Do people really still believe explosives were used to bring down three skyscrappers, despite no material evidence to show the demolition occured? (btw literally two puffs from blown out windows and a dozen loud no-descript explosions do not count as evidence, find footage of actual CT and see the massive difference). Physics teaches us it is possible, albeit improbable, its youtube that tells us physics says no. apart from a small group representing <1% of the qualified engineers in the US, scientists and engineers either accept or ignore the official explaination.

 

[tezz79]

I think the fire would have burned for more than an hour to melt the structural steel, (after the heat had penetrated the concrete & fire proofings) and the Boeing as well. (given that there is bugger all wreckage)
In fact the footage mainly shows black smoke, very little fire.

Wouldn't the plane have penetrated the concrete then ?
I think you'll find it would have done a lot of structural damage or did you expect the plane to bounce off of the building & land on the floor in pieces

 

[colinz]

But it's only the scientists you choose to listen to that say it's impossible

Why do you have to be a scientist to know that aeroplanes cannot fly through buildings. I know that 2+2=4, but I'm not a mathematician

 

[colinz]

Wouldn't the plane have penetrated the concrete then ?
I think you'll find it would have done a lot of structural damage or did you expect the plane to bounce off of the building & land on the floor in pieces

More chance of that happening than flying seamlessly into the building, then poking out the otherside with it's nose cone exactly the same as before it entered the building.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

So i'm the fruitcake for thinking jet oil can't melt steel? I'm the fruitcake because scientists claim 9/11 was impossible? hhmm?
As you know so much more than physics, what is your theory behind this?

I failed Physics O Level. I prefer to listen to those who know more than me - and what I could see happening at the time.

 

[colinz]

Do people really still believe explosives were used to bring down three skyscrappers, despite no material evidence to show the demolition occured?

Given that each building had a collapse sequence of 15 odd seconds, I would say yes.

Edit : post corrected to 15 seconds instead of 10.

 

[Falmer]

I failed Physics O Level. I prefer to listen to those who know more than me - and what I could see happening at the time.

So why don't you listen to scientists rather than news presenters?

 

[tezz79]

Why do you have to be a scientist to know that aeroplanes cannot fly through buildings. I know that 2+2=4, but I'm not a mathematician

You've only got to look at the damage some light aircraft have done to buildings to realise that they can fly through buildings & how come you can use scientists to reinforce your side of the debate when you say they claim it's impossible yet when pointed to the fact that the vast majority agree that it is possible you say "ah we don't have to be scientists"
Seriously mate I know the documentaries make it all sound good but it's bollocks ain't it

 

[colinz]

Experts as in people who know what they're talking about, unlike the little prick who made the loose change dvd's that falmer & Collinz would rather listen to

You'd like loosechange, they also think that Boeings can disappear inside buildings.

 

[tezz79]

So why don't you listen to scientists rather than news presenters?

We have

 

[One Love]

Given that each building had a collapse sequence of 10 odd seconds, I would say yes.

Actually both towers collapsed in between 14 and 16 seconds but don't let facts get in the way of your viewpoint.