How people respond to 9/11 evidence counter to the official conspiracy theory

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: mrthumpy

Again - I have no idea what you are getting at?
Please try your best to put into words what it is you want to know. Pretend that I am really stupid and then try to formulate a post that is simple for me to understand. 'How were the planes destroyed?' is not enough - I need more to work with.
Thank you for your patience.

So you didn't know what you were referring to when you typed "It quite simply just happens!"

Everything just happens.

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: mrthumpy
Pretty sure those aircraft were destroyed in the impact

Do you mean 'on' impact?

Either way they were definitely destroyed. I wonder what did that

Yes - I wonder what did that?
Do you know what did that?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: mrthumpy
Pretty sure those aircraft were destroyed in the impact

Do you mean 'on' impact?

Either way they were definitely destroyed. I wonder what did that

Yes - I wonder what did that?
Do you know what did that?

And yet here you are lecturing people on how things should behave during an impact.

a reply to: mrthumpy

Not lecturing people - pointing out and questioning.
The video of the plane with wings entering the tower is not even 'real' - it is CGI - so....... that is why the wings did not fall off!
It's a total joke.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: mrthumpy

Not lecturing people - pointing out and questioning.

But you've never stopped to question what happens in an impact.

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: mrthumpy

Not lecturing people - pointing out and questioning.

But you've never stopped to question what happens in an impact.

What happens in an impact?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: mrthumpy

Not lecturing people - pointing out and questioning.
The video of the plane with wings entering the tower is not even 'real' - it is CGI - so....... that is why the wings did not fall off!
It's a total joke.

Why wouldn’t wings containing thousands of pounds of fuel not penetrate the towers. 500 mph is about 730 feet per second. Some 45 acp rounds travel only at 750 feet per second. How would you like to get hit by a bullet with a weight of 1,000 pounds? Much less 8,000 pounds? And the 8,000 pounds is just the weight of the fuel in the wings. The jets weighed something like 200,000 pounds? Think of getting hit by 200,000 pound bullet travailing with the speed of a 45 ACP round?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

I think there is some law that fluids are nearly incompressible too?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: mrthumpy

Not lecturing people - pointing out and questioning.

But you've never stopped to question what happens in an impact.

What happens in an impact?

A lot of energy has to go away very quickly

a reply to: MALBOSIA

So, people that dont believe your silly 9/11 conspiracy theories are de-evolved?

Hey if you want have such a delusional stance its up to you.

Where did I provide a conspiracy theory of mine for anyone to believe or disbelieve?


If you read what you are replying to I have trouble seeing how you conclude such nonsense,

I explained why it seems that the human mind is de-volving in what you quoted,

How you get that anybody that doesn't believe a conspiracy theory I never provided is devolving is beyond me.

Maybe some of us really are devolving and cannot follow simple sentences or

or......

you just want play word games, this seems a lot more reasonable when one looks at your last few posts in this thread.

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: mrthumpy

Not lecturing people - pointing out and questioning.

But you've never stopped to question what happens in an impact.

What happens in an impact?

A lot of energy has to go away very quickly

Oh well at least I know what happens in an impact now - I won't need to stop and question that again.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: mrthumpy

Not lecturing people - pointing out and questioning.

But you've never stopped to question what happens in an impact.

What happens in an impact?

A lot of energy has to go away very quickly

Oh well at least I know what happens in an impact now - I won't need to stop and question that again.

And you'll be able to manage better than 'it just happens' . You're welcome

a reply to: Itisnowagain

I find it odd that anyone would believe anything they see on a tv screen!!

But Youtube gets a pass, just make sure you don't watch it on a TV screen.

The television it is nothing but a propaganda machine - producing a zombie nation.

and here you are posting thing that are viewed on a TV screen/monitor.


One would think you couldn't get any more funnier

but lets not get too excited

Its not long before we get this gem.

CIA Pilot Swears Oath: Planes Did Not Bring Towers Down On 9/11 Former CIA officer and commercial jet pilot John Lear has sworn an affidavit stating the Twin Towers were not bought to the ground by planes crashing into them on 9/11. In Lear’s expert opinion the official claim that two planes crashed into the towers is actually “physically impossible.”

So the only conclusions is holograms right?

a reply to: InhaleExhale

So the only conclusions is holograms right?

It could have been, however, I have not concluded what happened that day - however I don't believe the official story.

a reply to: neutronflux

I said this:
It is utterly impossible for a "gravitational collapse" to proceed so destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near free-fall times.

You respond with this:

The towers did not fall at the rate of free fall.

That's not what is said, but who cares right? Smh.. You are just so quick to jump with your same responses over and over.
And... You mention the towers in this response, but your follow up sentence describes building 7.

The truth movement is based on false notions. Are you just trying to make conspiracists look biased and too lazy to do research?

You need to check you own notions and responses, it's all repeat, repeat, repeat.......

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: kyleplatinum
a reply to: neutronflux

It is clear the energy far exceeded the gravitational potential energy of the building.

It is utterly impossible for a "gravitational collapse" to proceed so destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near free-fall times.

So while gravity is nearly strong enough to cause some things to fall that far, through air, in the observed interval, and while gravity is probably not strong enough to have so thoroughly disintegrated the towers under their own weight, gravity is certainly not strong enough to have done both at once.

On 9/11, gravity was much stronger than gravity.

Wow thats the dumbest thing i think ive ever heard. Seriously whats next on 9/11 water was much wetter then wet??

Here you need this

Wow thats the dumbest thing i think ive ever heard.

Wow, you mean read? Smh. You do not hear responses on forums, you read them... But what I post is dumb, lol.

The only portion of my post you respond to was the clear blatant obvious sarcastic sentence at the end.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: MALBOSIA

So, people that dont believe your silly 9/11 conspiracy theories are de-evolved?

Hey if you want have such a delusional stance its up to you.

Where did I provide a conspiracy theory of mine for anyone to believe or disbelieve?


If you read what you are replying to I have trouble seeing how you conclude such nonsense,

I explained why it seems that the human mind is de-volving in what you quoted,

How you get that anybody that doesn't believe a conspiracy theory I never provided is devolving is beyond me.

Maybe some of us really are devolving and cannot follow simple sentences or

or......

you just want play word games, this seems a lot more reasonable when one looks at your last few posts in this thread.

You dont support the following conspiracy theory?

“19 hijackers, directed by Osama Bin Laden, took over 4 Commercial Jets with box cutters and, while evading the Air Defense System (NORAD). Hit 75% of their targets. In turn, World Trade Towers 1,2 & 7 collapsed due to structural failure through fire in a “pancake” fashion, while the plane that hit the Pentagon vaporized upon impact, as did the plane that crashed in Shanksville. The 911 Commission found that there were no warnings for this act of Terrorism, while multiple government failures prevented adequate defense.”

What is the new "word game" accusation that the small few who believe the conpiracy theory above, are starting to use?

What do you think of people that dont take your theories seriously or believe they are valid or convincing?

De-evolved? What else would you call them?

a reply to: kyleplatinum

Whatever. Never mind that I posted an article that states the measured collapse speed of floor system fell first at about 67 percent the rate of free fall. Never mind the same article stated by video evidence the vertical core columns fell at 40 percent of the rate of free fall if I remember right. The initial floor collapse left long section of vertical core columns standing. They only toppled because of the lateral support of the floor system was lost.

And you never have address how much weight or shock load the floor connections connected to the vertical core columns should have handled. You really think the floor connections on the first static floor hit by the 29 stories above the areas of buckeling falling into the structure stood a chance?

Please define what rate of free fall was would have been impossible for the collapse of the floor system because of gravity. 90 percent of the rate of free fall vs the actual 67 percent of the rate of free fall for the floor system?

Nice why to ignore the actual facts of the collapse to create a vague and false narrative.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

You like word games? Let’s phrase the core argument like this. You think impact damage/ fire / thermal stress as the root cause is erroneous? Then what root cause is must support by the video/audio/picture/seismic record of the towers’s collapse?

Your conspiracy theory about the cause of collapse was not investigated properly or at all until after the US and allies invaded another country.

So, anything that you say you support is in reality only back-pedaling for info (cherry picking) to support a conclusion that was already acted on by the murder of hundreds of thousands of Afghanistans citizens.

I dont blame you for your desperation to male people believe your outrageous conspiracy theories. The alternative is being held accountable for war crimes involving genocide. Thats spot to be in. Meh.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

You dont support the following conspiracy theory?

No

What do you think of people that dont take your theories seriously or believe they are valid or convincing?

again

are you hallucinating?

what theories of mine?

WTF are you on about?

De-evolved? What else would you call them?

someone who cannot follow what is said in a very short and simple conversation?

Ignorant of basic speech and how to converse.

Look seeing as you cannot understand that you quoted what I was on about when I said the human mind is devolving and you seem to think it was directed at .......? you? someone?

Not sure why you are so focused on what was clearly explained when it was posted then explained again after you replied.

Seeing as you are really troubled, here let me hold your hand and walk you through my comment about de-volving.



I simply said technology is evolving while it seems the human mind using that tech is de-volving.

How you get that I have theories and if people don't believe me and my non existing theories they are devolved is beyond me.