USAF and Civilian Pilots: 9/11 Pilots Were Not Towel Heads With 5 Hours In A Cessna - Page 33

Ptech · 07-09-2008, 07:52 AM

Denie

I am not a physicist. The numbers I have seen published most frequently are somewhere in the vicinity of 9 to 10 seconds. There seems to be a consensus amongst those who are into that sort of relatively simple calculations.

How did parts of the exoskeleton fall more quickly than interior parts of the building?

I can see two possible and non exclusive explanations: 1) those pieces were in true free fall, with nothing between them and the ground (while others were being very slightly impeded by structure below them), and 2) there were explosive devices employed, and it that is how pieces were expelled with a horizontal vector. The explosives on a random basis might also have imparted a vertical vector.

mentor · 07-09-2008, 10:00 AM

This theory that the aircraft were remote controlled, and that the buildings had explosives in them is totally unparsimonious. Sure, the Bush admin wanted a Pearl Harbor. But why do it yourself, when there are plenty of bad guys willing to do it for you?

brian_wilbanks · 07-09-2008, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ptech

Out of all the garbage above, only Brian asks a reasonably intelligent question: why would the conspirators "allow" the supposed hijackers to remain alive? Actually a good question, with numerous possible answers it would seem.

Perhaps another good question would be why would the conspirators release passenger lists that did not include the names of the supposed hijackers?

A possible answer for both the questions: because the hijackers were actually just names and players in an elaborate ruse. They were never on the airplanes, and apparently the names were chosen from some pool of arab names? Is Atta as common as Smith?

The Hijackers are not alive. They died on 9/11/01.

brian_wilbanks · 07-09-2008, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ptech

Denie

2) there were explosive devices employed, and it that is how pieces were expelled with a horizontal vector. The explosives on a random basis might also have imparted a vertical vector.

Ahhhh so they DID have rockets attached to them!

Quote:

I am not a physicist.

No, you sure aren't. You've DEFINITELY proven that.

mentor · 07-09-2008, 10:54 AM

Has everyone dropped the "fake" airliner theory yet?

Duvidoo · 07-09-2008, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brian_wilbanks

The Hijackers are not alive. They died on 9/11/01.

Prove it. Originally one they named had died one year to the day BEFORE 9/11/01.

mentor · 07-09-2008, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvidoo

Prove it. Originally one they named had died one year to the day BEFORE 9/11/01.

It is obvious that the hijackers all died on the airplanes. OBVIOUS. The burden of proof lies squarely on those proposing the conspiracy theories.

bdd1 · 07-09-2008, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mentor

This theory that the aircraft were remote controlled, and that the buildings had explosives in them is totally unparsimonious. Sure, the Bush admin wanted a Pearl Harbor. But why do it yourself, when there are plenty of bad guys willing to do it for you?

Great use of occams razor!
And I concur!!

bdd1 · 07-09-2008, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mentor

Has everyone dropped the "fake" airliner theory yet?

That would be a negatory old buddy, the global hawk fairytale is alive and well according to beaglepaw.

Duvidoo · 07-09-2008, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mentor

It is obvious that the hijackers all died on the airplanes. OBVIOUS. The burden of proof lies squarely on those proposing the conspiracy theories.

Some quite reliable sources (e.g. the BBC) claimed to have interviewed some seven of the people who supposed were part of the hijacking party. All still safe and sound in the Middle east. That many of you refuse to accept this doesn't make it a lie ... it's just something that needs further investigation. If some seven are still alive how is it obvious that all 19 died?

07-09-2008, 07:52 AM	#321 (permalink)
Ptech Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Fort Pierce FL Posts: 1,304 Thanks: 35 Thanked 24 Times in 22 Posts	Denie I am not a physicist. The numbers I have seen published most frequently are somewhere in the vicinity of 9 to 10 seconds. There seems to be a consensus amongst those who are into that sort of relatively simple calculations. How did parts of the exoskeleton fall more quickly than interior parts of the building? I can see two possible and non exclusive explanations: 1) those pieces were in true free fall, with nothing between them and the ground (while others were being very slightly impeded by structure below them), and 2) there were explosive devices employed, and it that is how pieces were expelled with a horizontal vector. The explosives on a random basis might also have imparted a vertical vector.
	Top

07-09-2008, 10:00 AM	#322 (permalink)
mentor Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Northern California Posts: 1,921 My Mood: Thanks: 60 Thanked 119 Times in 86 Posts	This theory that the aircraft were remote controlled, and that the buildings had explosives in them is totally unparsimonious. Sure, the Bush admin wanted a Pearl Harbor. But why do it yourself, when there are plenty of bad guys willing to do it for you? __________________ Now the hard work begins...
	Top

07-09-2008, 10:54 AM	#325 (permalink)
mentor Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Northern California Posts: 1,921 My Mood: Thanks: 60 Thanked 119 Times in 86 Posts	Has everyone dropped the "fake" airliner theory yet? __________________ Now the hard work begins...
	Top

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode