|
reply posted on 30-10-2009 @ 07:42 AM by jthomas
|
Originally posted by Lillydale
Originally posted by jthomas
Now, you seem to think that somehow proves that I am looking at shattered airplane wings.
NOT on your life, Lillydale.
Thank you for admitting that you have a picture that no more proves anything you have said any more than anything that I have said. About time you man
up.
I showed you quite clearly why you cannot rely on photos of the debris to make the claim that there is no wing debris. There is no point in denying
that, is there? You agreed with me and now you are forced to admit that YOU cannot use photos to claim there is no wing debris.
I already made it crystal clear that I cannot discern of what that debris is composed. And neither can you.
Um....no. You did not make it crystal clear as you presented the picture as evidence of wing debris.
Nope. You know I did just the opposite. I showed you why you can't tell of what the debris is composed.
Now you claim you do not know if it is or not and that you made that clear????????
What confuses you about exactly what I wrote, to wit:
Exactly. Now you are catching on. You can look at that photo of debris all day long and you agree that you are unable to tell us of what
that debris is composed.
Not one thing in that picture indicates that it is debris from "shattered" wings.
Since you agree you cannot tell us of what the debris in the background is composed, then you would agree that you cannot tell us that the debris
does not contain wing debris. You can only say, "I don't know."
That was easy, wasn't it. All you have to do is learn to be skeptic and you can learn to ask the right questions and answer them yourselves.
But as I told you long ago, you have thousands of people who can tell you. You can ask them yourself what the debris was they walked through, picked
up, recovered, and removed, but you repeatedly refuse to ask them.
In the meantime, we have absolutely no reason NOT to accept ALL of the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon. Neither do you.
If you have made it so crystal clear that you do not know what those are pieces of....then why did you present them as an argument for wing
debris all over the lawn?
Once again, you know I didn't do any such thing. I used them to show you why YOU cannot use them to say there is no wing debris. I showed you,
once again, why you should interview the over 1,000 people who walked through the wreckage, handled it, removed it, and sorted through it, and ask
them what that wreckage was.
You'll recall that you repeatedly refused to find out what the evidence is.
Now you are forced to retract your claim, Lillydale:
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 30-10-2009 @ 07:44 AM by jthomas
|
Originally posted by washingtonsghost
this is what a real plane crash looks like...
Only that plane crash.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 30-10-2009 @ 11:52 AM by redoubt
|
reply to post by Lillydale
Where are AA77's wings?
I am... or was (late 1990s), a certified aluminum and steel welder, fabricator, designer and inspector. In my off time, I taught as a substitute in
local welding classes.
NOTE: For ATS: Will provide copies of certifications upon request
I am personally not at all satisfied with the Pentagon crash explanation. I could go into how steel reacts to heat for the WTC collapse but... it is
the Pentagon that seems to be the most telling.
Indeed. Where are those wings? Oh... and what about two huge jet-turbine engines designed to withstand far more heat than the fuel they burned?
If not for the Pentagon attack, I might have fallen for the whole thing. But I know metals just enough to know that there are two wings missing and a
whole lot of BS in their place!
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 30-10-2009 @ 12:56 PM by jthomas
|
Originally posted by redoubt
If not for the Pentagon attack, I might have fallen for the whole thing. But I know metals just enough to know that there are two wings missing and a
whole lot of BS in their place!
Feel free to demonstrate how you know that "there are two wings missing." No one else has been able to do it in the 8 years since 9/11.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 30-10-2009 @ 05:41 PM by Lillydale
|
Originally posted by defcon5
I cannot believe I actually have to explain this to you.
The main trail of debris starts AFTER the plane hit the obstacle, not BEFORE it. Why do you think there should be debris IN FRONT of the pentagon, and
that it would not be BEHIND the impact site at the facade? In other words, the debris is INSIDE the building, not out on the gawd-blessed lawn.
I hate it when truthers intentionally cannot think of this stuff because it disproves their theory.
Are you for real with this crap?????????????
When did I say the debris field should be in front of the Pentagon? It is YOU people that keep showing the debris IN FRONT of the pentagon and
claiming it is wing parts. I never once made such a claim. Can you quote me? You just plain made that up so you could argue against it. The sad thing
is the stars you got for making up your own argument and then arguing against it. Wow!
Let me try like this.
I NEVER SAID DEBRIS SHOULD BE IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING. ANTI-TRUTHERS KEEP SHOWING PICS OF DEBRIS IN FRONT AND CLAIMING IT IS THE WINGS. TAKE A LOOK
AT YOUR BUDDIES AND EXPLAIN PHYSICS TO THEM. I KNOW MY PHYSICS. I UNDERSTAND INERTIA. I NEVER CLAIMED DEBRIS SHOULD BE IN FRON.
YOU PEOPLE MADE THAT CLAIM, OVER AND OVER.
Let's just see who the last person to make this claim was.
originally posted by jthomas
Where is this debris again? I do not think that I need to repost the pictures because we have all seen the pics of the lawn after the crash. Where was
all that wing debris?
jthomas
Where is this debris again? I do not think that I need to repost the pictures because we have all seen the pics of the lawn after the crash. Where was
all that wing debris?
First, there has never been a Boeing 757 that has ever flown without wings.
Second, please tell us what the debris is in the background where all the men are standing.
So please explain to your partners in lie this physics. You are arguing against Jthomas, not me. Pat attention next time.
[edit on 10/30/09 by Lillydale]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 30-10-2009 @ 05:50 PM by Lillydale
|
Originally posted by jthomas
Feel free to demonstrate how you know that "there are two wings missing." No one else has been able to do it in the 8 years since 9/11.
You just plain lie. This is your tactic. You just make things up. In 8 years, NO ONE HAS BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE WINGS AND ENGINES MISSING.
It is really cute that you want to say that in 8 years no one had been able to prove that something did not happen.
In that same 8 years, when did anyone prove what happened to the wings and engines?????
You anti-truthers do not even agree and you all believe you know the real truth.
IN 8 YEARS NO ONE HAS PROVEN WHERE THE WINGS AND ENGINES WENT. If you think it has been done, then stop wasting all of our time and just show
us the proof.
Please do not just put up another pictures of stuff that even you have to admit you cannot identify. That was just a really stupid move.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 31-10-2009 @ 11:27 AM by jthomas
|
Originally posted by Lillydale
Originally posted by jthomas
Feel free to demonstrate how you know that "there are two wings missing." No one else has been able to do it in the 8 years since 9/11.
You just plain lie. This is your tactic. You just make things up. In 8 years, NO ONE HAS BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE WINGS AND ENGINES
MISSING.
You already agreed that YOU are unable to demonstrate that the wings ARE missing. Now you want to claim the engines are missing,
too???
Weird.
Please do not just put up another pictures of stuff that even you have to admit you cannot identify. That was just a really stupid move.
Actually, it was a perfectly logical move since it demonstrated that YOU cannot tell us what's in the debris - or not in the debris, either.
And remember, YOU have declared that you will never investigate what is in the debris.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 31-10-2009 @ 11:31 AM by jthomas
|
Originally posted by Lillydale
Second, please tell us what the debris is in the background where all the men are standing.
Since you agree that none of can tell what is and is not in the debris in the background, maybe you can tell us what the piece of metal right in the
foreground is.
Take your time....
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 1-11-2009 @ 03:43 AM by defcon5
|
Originally posted by Lillydale
Are you for real with this crap?????????????
When did I say the debris field should be in front of the Pentagon?
If you know that the wings would be small bits of debris INSIDE the building, then what is the purpose of this thread?
Originally posted by Lillydale
It is YOU people that keep showing the debris IN FRONT of the pentagon and claiming it is wing parts.
I never made such a claim, though due to the explosion, there is going to be some pieces that were ejected backwards. These are going to be in the
minority as the majority of the debris had enough forward inertia to travel inside the structure.
Originally posted by Lillydale
I never once made such a claim. Can you quote me?
Its the title of the thread, is it not?
Originally posted by Lillydale
The sad thing is the stars you got for making up your own argument and then arguing against it. Wow!
The skeptics seem to have caught onto the truther tactic of staring each others posts eh?
Originally posted by Lillydale
ANTI-TRUTHERS KEEP SHOWING PICS OF DEBRIS IN FRONT AND CLAIMING IT IS THE WINGS.
That is not a part of the wing, which is obvious as the AA logo is not displayed on the wings. That is a part from the fuselage above the wings.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-11-2009 @ 02:13 AM by Xenophiles
|
reply to post by trebor451
Is "eency-weency" a scientific term?  I don't recall ever seeing it used in any textbook or journal article. At least you didn't claim that a
planes wings can fold back against its body like a bird wings. 
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 19-11-2009 @ 08:56 PM by Lillydale
|
Originally posted by defcon5
Originally posted by Lillydale
Are you for real with this crap?????????????
When did I say the debris field should be in front of the Pentagon?
If you know that the wings would be small bits of debris INSIDE the building, then what is the purpose of this thread?
Now you really lost me and you even got stars for it. Ok, now I did not say either of the above things. Want to keep trying over and over again just
randomly making statements for me to remind you I have never made? Where is that getting us?
Let me see, apparently the last time I responded to you that was also about a false argument you made and then 'won.' Sorry pal but you are going to
have to use my statements to argue against...well...my statements. Just saying things and then trying to attatch them to me without anything to back
it up smells desperate and weak.
Would you like to address things I have actually said or are you just going to keep making up strawmen and tossing my name on them? I only ask so that
I can just put you on ignore now. I would like to think I am giving you a pretty fair chance here and if this is the best you have to offer, then I am
really wasting my time with you.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 25-11-2009 @ 01:33 AM by Lillydale
|
Originally posted by jthomas
I showed you quite clearly why you cannot rely on photos of the debris to make the claim that there is no wing debris. There is no point in denying
that, is there? You agreed with me and now you are forced to admit that YOU cannot use photos to claim there is no wing debris.
Yup, you are insane or stupid or just having fun. You have proven there is no reliable evidence? OK! Then you have also proven that you have no
evidence of wings or damage from them. Thank you for yelling so loudly about how unreliable the photos are. You agree with me that they do not prove
there were any wings anywhere. Thanks for backing me up.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 25-11-2009 @ 08:06 AM by Swampfox46_1999
|
reply to post by redoubt
Oh... and what about two huge jet-turbine engines designed to withstand far more heat than the fuel they burned
The combustion temperature that most conventional jet engines reach, exceeds the melting point of the materials they are made of. It is the design
of the engine that takes air from the intake and uses it a barrier if you will between the metal and the combustion products. You expose those parts
to a high enough temperature, without the airflow, they will melt.
[edit on 25-11-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
