Exposing the lies in the Official Story

reply to post by thegameisup


I usually dont come in this area, but I would like to bring up my opinion on the plane going down in PA. I think our own military took this plane down, because they could not risk it running into another target. What do you guys think?

Originally posted by Apollo7

I think our own military took this plane down,

All evidence points to the conclusion UA 93 was in one piece when it hit the ground. There was no shoot down.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
How could the fuel velocity go down to zero to fall down the middle of the shaft?

But if fuel flowed down the sides of the shaft wouldn't it be on fire? How long would it take to reach the lobby?

psik

It was drawn into the shaft by negative air pressure.

Bernoulli effect. It's the laws of physics.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

ROFLMAO

What bulls#!!! The Bernoulli effect is significant for a CONTINUOUS FLOW of air down a tube being expanded into a larger tube. The fuselage would have been ripped open by the perimeter columns and the moving air would have "impacted" the nearly stationary air inside the towers except for the turbulence created by the passage of the airliner fragments.

And airflow passed the end of a tube sucks things out of the tube not forcing things into them. That is how carburetors and perfume sprays work.



psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
ROFLMAO

What bulls#!!! The Bernoulli effect is significant for a CONTINUOUS FLOW of air down a tube being expanded into a larger tube. The fuselage would have been ripped open by the perimeter columns and the moving air would have "impacted" the nearly stationary air inside the towers except for the turbulence created by the passage of the airliner fragments.

And airflow passed the end of a tube sucks things out of the tube not forcing things into them. That is how carburetors and perfume sprays work.



psik

Dude. I don't think the towers were pressurized. We're not talking about elementary physics principles. Elementary physics applies a little differently in real life, since we are not in a vacuum and must account for many other forces and factors.

reply to post by waypastvne
All 'evidence' points to a hole in the ground, with no airplane in it! C'mon man, pick another part of the lie to defend, because this one is impossible. All you're doing is proving my point that you are a phony, because even a child can see there's no evidence of a plane crash, and for you to continue to push this lie tells me that you're part of the cover-up.

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by waypastvne

 

All 'evidence' points to a hole in the ground, with no airplane in it! C'mon man, pick another part of the lie to defend, because this one is impossible. All you're doing is proving my point that you are a phony, because even a child can see there's no evidence of a plane crash, and for you to continue to push this lie tells me that you're part of the cover-up.

Please explain the plane parts in the hole where there was no evidence of a plane. And the human remains of the victims in the hole where there is no evidence of a plane. Planted by top secret ninja plane part elves? Or is everyone who was at the site "in on it"?

reply to post by hooper
OK, now you. The 'evidence' you point to is ridiculous, and we both know that. You are part of the cover-up, and I'm calling you a liar. We have not been told the truth about that day, and since you come here every day defending the official story, I contend that you are guilty of obstruction. You should be behind bars. Sue me.

Better watch out hooper looks like there is a certain group of people that would like to lock everybody up who doesn't agree with them totally 100% of the time. But I guess it is not a big deal because they are only seeking the truth and their hearts are pure. Their self sacrifice is something that should be applauded, even awarded, not ridiculed.

You better get with the program or you are going to the hole.

reply to post by dillweed

OK, now you. The 'evidence' you point to is ridiculous, and we both know that.

Thank you for admitting there is evidence.

You are part of the cover-up, and I'm calling you a liar.

What have I lied about?

We have not been told the truth about that day, and since you come here every day defending the official story, I contend that you are guilty of obstruction.

Actually, I am proud to say that I am obstructing the spread of this nonsense.

You should be behind bars.

Now that's funny. Lock up anyone that doesn't agree with you.

Sue me.

I would, but I have a strange feeling you are not a deep pool of assets.

Treat this as a joke? You are part of the problem. I deny your right to spread dis-information without being challenged. You continually defend something that's riddled with inaccuracies, mistakes and outright lies, and expect me to treat you with respect. You are a fraud posing as someone who's here to help, and those that defend you are guilty as well. This has gone on too long now, and as long as you continue to post your defense of criminals, I'll take the time to remind you that when the truth is told, you will be found guilty as well.

reply to post by dillweed

Treat this as a joke?

If you insist.

You are part of the problem. I deny your right to spread dis-information without being challenged.

Fine, you seem to be quite comfortable with the concept of denial anyway.

You continually defend something that's riddled with inaccuracies, mistakes and outright lies, and expect me to treat you with respect.

I don't really care how you treat me.

You are a fraud posing as someone who's here to help, and those that defend you are guilty as well.

Please, don't be confused. I am not here to help propogate any of this boogeyman conspiracy nonsense. I am here to obstruct and the best way to obstruct nonsense is with facts and logic.

This has gone on too long now, and as long as you continue to post your defense of criminals, I'll take the time to remind you that when the truth is told, you will be found guilty as well.

Its been 11 years now. You've had complete and free access to one of the most wonderful communication tools in the history of mankind, the internet, and still you can't convince anymore than a handful of people that anything other than 19 religious zealots hijacked 4 planes on September 11, 2001 and purposely crashed them killing thousands.

delete

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

The Bernoulli effect is significant for a CONTINUOUS FLOW of air

Not true. The carburetor on my engine has a short pulse lasting about .02 sec. to draw fuel in to the engine, it does that 13,000 times a minuet. I would call that very intermittent.

down a tube being expanded into a larger tube.

No tubes are necessary, Bernoulli effect works just fine without them. Otherwise airplanes could only fly inside of tubes.

The fuselage would have been ripped open by the perimeter columns and the moving air would have "impacted" the nearly stationary air inside the towers except for the turbulence created by the passage of the airliner fragments.

The air obviously went in one side of the building and out the other. It even left a low pressure vapor trail in its wake.

And airflow passed the end of a tube sucks things out of the tube not forcing things into them. That is how carburetors and perfume sprays work.

Yes Einstein,,, this is exactly what I am trying to tell you.

The air from the plane passed over the elevator shafts and ducts.

As it passed over, it drew a large amount of air out of the shafts and left a low pressure inside the shafts.

The low pressure drew a large amount of air and jet fuel back into the shafts when it equalised.

The jet fuel ignited..... Mystery solved.

Originally posted by Varemia

Dude. I don't think the towers were pressurized. We're not talking about elementary physics principles. Elementary physics applies a little differently in real life, since we are not in a vacuum and must account for many other forces and factors.

Tell waypastvne. He brought up negative pressure and Bernoulli effect.

psik

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

The Bernoulli effect is significant for a CONTINUOUS FLOW of air

Not true. The carburetor on my engine has a short pulse lasting about .02 sec. to draw fuel in to the engine, it does that 13,000 times a minuet. I would call that very intermittent.

Assuming you are correct about that short pulse isn't that for just one cylinder? How many cylinders are ther?

So it is a continuous but fluctuating flow for as long as the engine is running. Do you ever run you engine for just two seconds? Because that is how long it took for the plane to be ripped apart and most of the mass brought to a stop.

And a carburetor pulls fluid out of the tube not put it in so your straw man is upside down anyway.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Tell waypastvne. He brought up negative pressure and Bernoulli effect.

Yes I did. Please continue.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


And a carburetor pulls fluid out of the tube not put it in so your straw man is upside down anyway.

Someone who can't figure out that air will rush in to fill a low pressure, Is literally not smart enough to breath.

Originally posted by waypastvne
Not true. The carburetor on my engine has a short pulse lasting about .02 sec. to draw fuel in to the engine, it does that 13,000 times a minuet. I would call that very intermittent.

Sounds like you have fuel injection, not a carburetor.

You can say what you want about air pressure, but you still have the problem that fuel does not explode when ignited in open air. Burning fuel can not do the damage you're claiming, period.

Fuel will only cause an 'explosion' if it is in an airtight container, where the gasses released can build pressure and rupture the container.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by waypastvne
Not true. The carburetor on my engine has a short pulse lasting about .02 sec. to draw fuel in to the engine, it does that 13,000 times a minuet. I would call that very intermittent.

You can say what you want about air pressure, but you still have the problem that fuel does not explode when ignited in open air. Burning fuel can not do the damage you're claiming, period.

Fuel will only cause an 'explosion' if it is in an airtight container, where the gasses released can build pressure and rupture the container.

I guess you never have heard of a Fuel Air Explosive.

Originally posted by huh2142
I guess you never have heard of a Fuel Air Explosive.

Of course I have. They work by igniting fuel vapors, as I mentioned before it is the vapors that ignite not the liquid fuel. I know I said the only way to get fuel to explode is in a container, normally it is, FAE's work by creating a fuel vapor cloud which instantly expands when ignited, in a controlled manner. They are only effective against soft targets.

In the case of the WTC the fuel would not create enough vapor fast enough in open air to 'explode'. It would take time to build up enough vapor, which can't happen while the fuel is moving. The conditions were not correct for a fuel 'explosion'.