9/11 what do you think?

Doer said:

Right. We are saying if he had the $100 lesson he could see how easy it is to steer a plane around in the sky. Here are the real simulators and they are so well certified they count for training hours. I was in an F4 simulator with I was 12 years old. My dad was the Simulator Chief Msgt, for the Air Force. One of only 63, NCOIC commissioned by Congress as a new rank. I grew up with this and have been oriented in the Apache which is a hoot.

The seat vibrates from the chain gun. And the air speed actually drops, from the recoil..gotta be careful with that.

Click to expand...

That still doesn't change the fact you COULD NOT organise a pissup in a brewery. All this bullshit you claim is about other people. You are not a qualified aviator, yeah sitting in a F4 simulator 4 years ago doesn't make you a pilot... My old man's an electrical engineer, doesn't by default extend to me too...

According to you, a couple of hours on XBOX and I'm ready to join soar.

47 core columns, 236 outer columns spaced a meter apart. Not to mention the horizontal strapping & concrete. All this steel & concrete, and you don't question the video of the aluminum nose going all the way through the building? Silly bitches. I don't claim that I know what happened that day, but the whole thing stinks! Larry Silverstein, "pull it"... the path of flight 77, inches above the ground hitting the most guarded building in the world, yet no actual footage, except 5 frames showing NOTHING! NORAD exercises... The 911 commission... The NIST report... Building 7... Box cutters for fuck sakes... All planes only filled to 1/3 capacity... Lack of military response. 1500 degree temps recorded at ground zero 2 months after... Jet fuel would've been mostly burnt up on or shortly after impact. In this vid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8q_gSJ5n_A you can see how quickly this gas fire subsides. Gasoline contains more MJ/kg than jet fuel btw... Call me a tinfoil hat wearing twoofer, I don't care. If you can't see that there are a shitload of anomalies with the official story, you are either blind or you are part of the cover-up. Regardless of which, you're the farthest thing from a patriot!

You seem, like most, to lack the math, or the interest to view the simulations done by MIT.

Let us put it this way. Do you know how they say if you Jump off the Golden Gate Bridge, the velocity of your fall, (less than 200 mph), and the instant non-viscostiy of water, it is indeed the same damage as falling on concrete?

OK, now scale up. It is very simple math. The very tippy tip of the nose cone was indeed just smushed.

But, there was 85,000 pounds at 500 mph an instant behind that. Did you think it would just splatter? Steel vaporizes at that energy, and the jet fuel has not even gone off yet.

But, I bet you didn't see it Live. Just a regular day one tower on fire already, still thinking a horrible accident, and this other plane in front of the eyes of the world, slammed all the way thru the building. That happened.

How it happened is simple physics. That is a wind load wall. It must withstand the wind load.

So many pound per square inch. Right? All over. Local gusts? OK, higher but momentary overloads. Physics.

But, the case of an an 85K pound pointed object at 500 mph was not in the load statement.

A much smaller plane, the 707, the load would have held, and that total collapse may not have happened. That was in the load statement.

You saying a a 7.0 earthquake has no way of taking down a 6.5 building. Yes, way. Especially if a billion people see it live. See now?

You're a tad off on the weight of a 767. Much heavier, actually. I understand your golden gate bridge theory just fine. How many MJ of energy does it take to vaporize steel, exactly? I really want to know! The towers were designed to withstand the impact of a fully loaded 707 at 600 mph. That's 4945 MJ of energy, or 1360 MJ more than the impact of flight 175. A 707 isn't a MUCH smaller plane as you've stated. It's slightly smaller, shares about the same fuel capacity, and has a higher top speed. See now? WTF!

Mike Young said:

You're a tad off on the weight of a 767. Much heavier, actually. I understand your golden gate bridge theory just fine. How many MJ of energy does it take to vaporize steel, exactly? I really want to know! The towers were designed to withstand the impact of a fully loaded 707 at 600 mph. That's 4945 MJ of energy, or 1360 MJ more than the impact of flight 175. A 707 isn't a MUCH smaller plane as you've stated. It's slightly smaller, shares about the same fuel capacity, and has a higher top speed. See now? WTF!

Click to expand...

OK, what about the earthquake analogy? I am not an expert denier or promoter to be sure. And I am glad you are allowing the rough guess. 139,000 gtw

1) Was the designer of the building, really an expert on a novel structure?( and wind loaded only in the finite element tech of the time) Could he really predict the loads outside of wind?

a) and could not a lot of money and influence win out, over the Donald Trumps who hated it?
b) the City glad for the tax base of such a structure to say nothing of prestige, just bought it?

2) Was not the 707 "qualification" (a joke, right?) an add on. A later request by the City, I think. Some objection, cleared?

And in the earthquake example the 767 is not a lot bigger than the 707, and it is somewhat heavier. The max air speeds are not relevant, but the extra wing span about 10 feet is.

So, here is the kicker to this old engineer, it didn't cut it, did it? We saw those buildings fail.

So, can we at least agree if the building could not withstand the impact of a 767, then it certainly could have never withstood a 707?

That was a fake from the beginning. You see it the other way, though, right? Thru the SCAC glasses.

It is the funny thing about this Special Camera angle view point. I mean, I had some weird views my self.

We can be blind to the obvious fact, before our very eyes. No reason at all, why a 707 could not have done the same thing.

So, shame on them, right? A dumb idea from the City govt..."what about a plane??" (my burg got the panic) A setup of Mkt/Politics/Selling/Arm Twisting and M$$oney.

What about it? I look at it from what I know. A big lie about a 707 in the first place, I think.

doer fires didn't bring those buildings down even if they did do you hate iran so much that 12 years later you are still supporting isreals wars . iran will be of the map in the next 100 years if people like you don't wake up and stop supporting these illegal wars

have you seen the video of u.s soldiers firing from a drone blowing up a group of innocent civilians thats just 1 case ..FAKETRIOTS MAKE ME SICK

Novicehomegrower said:

doer fires didn't bring those buildings down even if they did do you hate iran so much that 12 years later you are still supporting isreals wars . iran will be of the map in the next 100 years if people like you don't wake up and stop supporting these illegal wars

Click to expand...

No I get it. It is war, as I am fond of pointing out. War upon war. But, I get it.

You few who saw the rain of frogs, who felt the winds of blood. You true believers will go forth, of that I have no doubt.

Novicehomegrower said:

doer fires didn't bring those buildings down even if they did do you hate iran so much that 12 years later you are still supporting isreals wars . iran will be of the map in the next 100 years if people like you don't wake up and stop supporting these illegal wars

Click to expand...

Conventional fires don't bring buildings down. If you had an incident comparable to the World Trade Center, you would have a point, but there is none.

Mike Young said:

You're a tad off on the weight of a 767. Much heavier, actually. I understand your golden gate bridge theory just fine. How many MJ of energy does it take to vaporize steel, exactly? I really want to know! The towers were designed to withstand the impact of a fully loaded 707 at 600 mph. That's 4945 MJ of energy, or 1360 MJ more than the impact of flight 175. A 707 isn't a MUCH smaller plane as you've stated. It's slightly smaller, shares about the same fuel capacity, and has a higher top speed. See now? WTF!

Click to expand...

The buildings did withstand the impact of the planes, which enabled the vast majority of the people inside to safely evacuate. Obviously you mean that the buildings shouldn't have collapsed.

But the design specification you're referencing comes out of the 1960s; it wasn't the result of sophisticated computer modeling. The kind of technical analysis that would be conducted today just wasn't possible then. On its own, the design specification is evidence of nothing--it was never actually tested until 9/11.

Of course, the designers were also considering an inadvertent impact--as every other aircraft impact had been--not an intentional one.

tokeprep said:

Conventional fires don't bring buildings down. If you had an incident comparable to the World Trade Center, you would have a point, but there is none.

Click to expand...

ino they dont .... steel weakens at 1700 deg melts at 3000+ and jet fuel burns at a maximum of 600, what do you believe ?

what could have caused the extra 2,400 degrees of heat + the melted metal in the lobby of the center

As the idiotic video of redneck gasoline brush fire demonstrated, the majority of the jet fuel would've burnt off at the time of impact and shortly after. There's a photo of two people standing in the goddamn impact hole, for fuck sakes! I don't deny they may have embellished on the integrity of them a bit, but bldg. 7 didn't get hit by a plane, and the fires were not that impressive. Seriously, you buy the ENTIRE gov't story??? Ew!

there government has trained them well they have bread a fine group of obedient workers.

the thing is even if we tell them / show them proof they just never watch anything that would disprove it .. or they think they can debunk it when as you said there was people standing in the tower so there for everything would have been ok .. so why an hour later the whole thing crashes to the ground into its own footstep in the same manor that controlled demolitions take place . exactly the same .. plus EYE witnesses said they saw the small blast's one after one as it fell he said he saw blasts just under every time it fell a layer the mainstream says nothing of this .. iv linked all these videos
,eye witnesses saying they got blown of there feet in the lobby, etc etc etc but they do not watch and they do not form there own opinion

wow im so tired i cant be ask to check over that .

but the point is people who believe that a plane made a skyscraper fall straight into dust into its own foot print are a pea brain idiot who fails to take science into consideration.

Mike Young said:

As the idiotic video of redneck gasoline brush fire demonstrated, the majority of the jet fuel would've burnt off at the time of impact and shortly after. There's a photo of two people standing in the goddamn impact hole, for fuck sakes! I don't deny they may have embellished on the integrity of them a bit, but bldg. 7 didn't get hit by a plane, and the fires were not that impressive. Seriously, you buy the ENTIRE gov't story??? Ew!

Click to expand...

I only believe what I saw and heard.

A brushfire and jet fuel is not the same as all that office plastic, tons of powdered aluminum and steel, tons of paper and the instant heat of collision that sagged the floor joists directly above to create a bigger and bigger fire. And that collapsed both buildings more or less straight down powdering concrete dust to hide the obvious. It was mostly those concrete panel and columns exploding outwards. They were covered in concrete.

What about this what about that what about this

What does it matter? As I said most of what is claimed is physically impossible when the obvious is right there.

What about the heat what the lobby what about the holy fart and birds flying upside down? This is already a religion and I won't stand in the way of that. I have freedom from religion.

I don't really care. I saw planes hit buildings. The buildings fell and gashed and gushed into other buildings. They stood, fell or stood, and then fell. A lot of 1st responders were killed and a of civilians. I heard cell phones of people on planes, our citizens, in various states that match what I saw.

I saw it. The govt has a pretty straight forward explanation. But, the SCAC has a fractured set of mis-information from which they mfg "what about this what about that" from a weird set of other "this and that." It is tortured, shrill and weird. It really has no believable motive other than the Hate Bush the govt lies.

If you want to say the govt did it, fine. And so what? Whatever. At least they haven't come in the middle of the night to get you for exposing this.

Think about that. If so powerful, why leave any of you alive?

i actually got most of this information from a 911 video supporting it was 'terrorists' they have hours of footage from that day and there interviews done with just random people there at the time as i linked earlier the video of the 2 people who got blown of there feet in the lobby downstairs .. why was there an explosion downstairs ?? oh no but they ignore this like them 2 people dont exist .................

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e0kNFImu88


edit- how can you not understand that it was not the plane that brought down the towers


edit- he was on the 80 ish floor when he got to the lobby boom an explosion

Novicehomegrower said:

there government has trained them well they have bread a fine group of obedient workers.

the thing is even if we tell them / show them proof they just never watch anything that would disprove it .. or they think they can debunk it when as you said there was people standing in the tower so there for everything would have been ok .. so why an hour later the whole thing crashes to the ground into its own footstep in the same manor that controlled demolitions take place . exactly the same .. plus EYE witnesses said they saw the small blast's one after one as it fell he said he saw blasts just under every time it fell a layer the mainstream says nothing of this .. iv linked all these videos
,eye witnesses saying they got blown of there feet in the lobby, etc etc etc but they do not watch and they do not form there own opinion

wow im so tired i cant be ask to check over that .

but the point is people who believe that a plane made a skyscraper fall straight into dust into its own foot print are a pea brain idiot who fails to take science into consideration.

Click to expand...

But, I'm rich and you are still stupid. So, I guess they trained me well.

Doer said:

But, I'm rich and you are still stupid. So, I guess they trained me well.

Click to expand...

the main point was that you are blind

and i bet you don't earn more than 100k a year

Doer said:

But, I'm rich and you are still stupid. So, I guess they trained me well.

Click to expand...

and doer mate just because you studied at a poor quality university for a few years doesn't make you smart. if you where really top scientist material you would not spend time arguing with people on a cannabis forum let alone even go on a cannabis forum, you are not smart. even if you pretend to be to be online on a cannabis chat site

if you think a plane can powderize a building into rubbbel in its own footprint just down to debri and jet fuel alone . that really just throws everything you ever studied in science education in the garbage