Trillion Dollar Conspiracy... 9/11 Mounting Evidence...

a reply to: Jchristopher5

Why do you have to be so nasty on every response

That's a good question. I think it's because they believe that sarcasm somehow makes them appear "smarter" than you. I reckon most of these debunkers think "humility" is the new fragrance by Paco Rabanne....

a reply to: Flatcoat
No comment. But, thank you for the response! Sincerely. Feel like I am on an island sometimes.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

Pointing out the reality of what your theories mean in practice is not an attack or an insult. Okay?

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Constantly demeaning "truthers" and launching insults does constitute an attack. Again, Reread your posts and that of your like-minded partner Bruce.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

You should reread your posts. Accusing people of being paid to post here...among other things. And no, Bruce, is not my partner.

He works in a different department.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

I have not done that since I was warned. I said like minded. You two obviously are of the same mind. Not an insult. Quit being sensitive.

Alright. Any further posts attacking another member will result in posting bans. This will end now. Stick to the topic.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Salander

Because it was a completely different building. The last time I checked, kevlar reinforced concrete was just slightly harder than steel and glass.

Oh gosh, I thought it was Kryptonite reinforced concrete.

Wings leave a beautiful impact on the WTC exoskeleton, yet not a bloody mark on the pentagon. Sure! Even the glass windows must have been Kryptonite reinforced eh? LOL

a reply to: hellobruce

The video DOES NOT SHOW a 757 sized aircraft. It shows something much smaller.

The vertical tail of a 757 is just about as tall as the pentagon itself. The flying object is much smaller than that.

I suppose it's that video that makes some speculate it was some sort of smaller drone aircraft. Whatever it was, it was NOT a 757.

a reply to: Salander

So according to you a single piece of concrete has the same tensil strength as steel, and will reacted in the exact same way as steel I-beams riveted together.

a reply to: hellobruce

There were no 757 landing gear assemblies. There were no 757 engines.

There WAS a single turbine engine debris, and there was some much smaller wheels, but nothing consistent with a 757. That is why so many people familiar with aircraft accidents chuckle at the silly government story. It's impossible.

a reply to: Zaphod58

No sir, I never said that--you did.

I say it really stretches the imagination and common sense to see a 767 wing leave significant marks at WTC, but not a single mark at the pentagon, not even a window cracked.

a reply to: Salander

The wheel that was shown matches the wheel used on a 757.

a reply to: Salander

And the fact that it was a much smaller and lighter aircraft makes a difference. Although even a 767 wouldn't have left a cartoon imprint either. The outer wings of any plane would have done the same thing.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Salander

And the fact that it was a much smaller and lighter aircraft makes a difference. Although even a 767 wouldn't have left a cartoon imprint either. The outer wings of any plane would have done the same thing.

You speak, in your posts, as if you are an authority on what damage, planes traveling 500 MPH would do on impact. How do you know this with any certainty?

It's my opinion that a hollow wing, attached to a 757, traveling at 500 MPH would break multiple windows. Why is your opinion more valid on this subject?

I keep looking at that 90 foot wide impact area at the Pentagon and marvel at the fact that someone claims Flight 77 did not leave a mark......

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
I keep looking at that 90 foot wide impact area at the Pentagon and marvel at the fact that someone claims Flight 77 did not leave a mark......

It wasn't 90' wide. We have established that it was about 16' wide, pre collapse. That is big enough for the main body of the plane, BUT NOT for the wings and for the titanium plated engines.

You guys believe the wings folded in, what about the engines? Why are they not seen in the original Impact hole? Are you suggest thst they "folded in" as well?

a reply to: Jchristopher5

I've crawled inside aircraft wings checking for fuel leaks. I've walked on the outside of them, where there are places you can step, and your foot will punch through. I spent almost 30 years around aircraft, and have crawled into just about everywhere you can go on one.

It's not hard to be able to figure out what would happen if you slam certain parts into solid objects with experience working on them.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jchristopher5

I've crawled inside aircraft wings checking for fuel leaks. I've walked on the outside of them, where there are places you can step, and your foot will punch through. I spent almost 30 years around aircraft, and have crawled into just about everywhere you can go on one.

It's not hard to be able to figure out what would happen if you slam certain parts into solid objects with experience working on them.

In a post yesterday, we seemed to agree thst the original impact hole was 16' in diameter, correct? You noted that this was plenty large for the main aircraft body, assuming the wings folded in as the official conspiracy theory maintains.

If so, what happened to the engines? The holes should be much larger than 16' in diameter, if the titanium engines hit the building, correct? I didn't think to make that point yesterday.