Any evidence of pre setup?

a reply to: TopSecretMan

Think about it. If it’s about density, not force and energy, how does wind remove shingles, metal roofing, and knock over structures?

a reply to: TopSecretMan

It was a response to neutron question

Yes


again who ever said wind blows down skyscrapers?


The suggestion being put forth was asking you questions about if its destiny and not force and energy because you say aluminum which is much less dense than steel cant penetrate steel, so the questions asked was how can wind, air having no density whatsoever compared to any solid structure yet wind can blow down houses and blow steel roofs of building.

How can air/wind with a density less than water knock over solid things with much higher densities?

You seem to not get the basic premise of what being asked.

are you doing this purposely?

Its a simple question yet you put words in others mouths to try and dodge the question that shows how flawed the logic using is.

originally posted by: TopSecretMan
a reply to: TopSecretMan

Think about it. If it’s about density, not force and energy, how does wind remove shingles, metal roofing, and knock over structures?

do you not understand the question?

nowhere is it suggesting that steel skyscrapers are brought down by wind so how you come up with that is beyond me.


this is being asked as I have already explained


You say that aluminum cannot penetrate steel because you give the impression that its because steel is so much more dense that aluminum.


Hence the questions about wind with very little density moving and knocking over houses and buildings and how its possible if its about density.

originally posted by: TopSecretMan

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: TopSecretMan

Trying to change topics? Typical conspiracist tactic....

Again
So, how did the 200,000 pound plus 767s that might have as much as 40,000 pounds of fuel in each wing flying over 400mph not have the energy to take out hollow vertical columns with steel plate thickness that might have been down to 1/4” thick. The steel plates that the columns were made from thinned with the high of the towers.

www.google.com...

Maybe it wasn't a plane

Then why was the damage directional damage. Where did the passengers DNA come from. Where did the landing gear, the jet engine, the jet wreckage, and personal effects that ended up in the street come from.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale

originally posted by: TopSecretMan
a reply to: TopSecretMan

Think about it. If it’s about density, not force and energy, how does wind remove shingles, metal roofing, and knock over structures?

do you not understand the question?

nowhere is it suggesting that steel skyscrapers are brought down by wind so how you come up with that is beyond me.


this is being asked as I have already explained


You say that aluminum cannot penetrate steel because you give the impression that its because steel is so much more dense that aluminum.


Hence the questions about wind with very little density moving and knocking over houses and buildings and how its possible if its about density.

I never said it was just about density??

It's about mass as well

originally posted by: TopSecretMan

originally posted by: InhaleExhale

originally posted by: TopSecretMan
a reply to: TopSecretMan

Think about it. If it’s about density, not force and energy, how does wind remove shingles, metal roofing, and knock over structures?

do you not understand the question?

nowhere is it suggesting that steel skyscrapers are brought down by wind so how you come up with that is beyond me.


this is being asked as I have already explained


You say that aluminum cannot penetrate steel because you give the impression that its because steel is so much more dense that aluminum.


Hence the questions about wind with very little density moving and knocking over houses and buildings and how its possible if its about density.

I never said it was just about density??

It's about mass as well

You're getting there

a reply to: TopSecretMan

I never said it was just about density??

FFS

stop trolling and read what you are responding too.

Who said you did?


You say this

The point I was trying to make wasn't the type of plane it was. It was that aluminum cant penetrate steel.

Why cant aluminum penetrate steel?

Its a stupid truther phrase so many parrot that implies only density is at play, steel is much more dense than aluminum so hence without any further thought this stupid "aluminum cant penetrate steel" saying is used to describe a Boeing passenger Jet hit the towers.

It's about mass as well

If something made of aluminum has enough mass and velocity to create massive kinetic energy it could maybe penetrate something made of steel?

a reply to: TopSecretMan

It was that aluminum cant penetrate steel.

Didn't you do the paper straw vs the raw potato experiment in science class?

Hold a raw potato in your left hand.
Hold a paper straw in your right hand with your thumb over the end.
Stab the straw as fast as you can through the potato.
I goes all the way through.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: TopSecretMan

It was that aluminum cant penetrate steel.

Didn't you do the paper straw vs the raw potato experiment in science class?

Hold a raw potato in your left hand.
Hold a paper straw in your right hand with your thumb over the end.
Stab the straw as fast as you can through the potato.
I goes all the way through.

Maybe it's time to break out the ping pong ball going through the paddle video

a reply to: mrthumpy

Who was the individual that started posting the links for the Nurf Dart through a metal can?

World's Fastest NERF Dart
m.youtube.com...

What happens when a NERF dart breaks the SPEED OF SOUND?
m.youtube.com...

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: TopSecretMan

I never said it was just about density??

FFS

stop trolling and read what you are responding too.

Who said you did?


You say this

The point I was trying to make wasn't the type of plane it was. It was that aluminum cant penetrate steel.

Why cant aluminum penetrate steel?

Its a stupid truther phrase so many parrot that implies only density is at play, steel is much more dense than aluminum so hence without any further thought this stupid "aluminum cant penetrate steel" saying is used to describe a Boeing passenger Jet hit the towers.

It's about mass as well

If something made of aluminum has enough mass and velocity to create massive kinetic energy it could maybe penetrate something made of steel?

If aluminum can penetrate steel as you claim, why do they make hammers out of steel instead of aluminum?

Why don't they make anti-tank rounds out of aluminum? Why don't they make saw blades out of aluminum?

Such absurdity you offer.

a reply to: Salander

What, that a jet with a maximum take off weigh over 300,000 pounds couldn’t punch through the WTC like a foot kicking through a board?

Just one fuel tank at the wing tip of a 767 holds over a ton of fuel. Are you saying 2,000 pounds hitting the former WTC Tower at over 400 mph would not take out a vertical column? Much less a jet weighing over 300,000 LBS?

a reply to: Salander

Yes. a 767 can hit a steel building with enough speed and energy that is more than the elastic limits of the steel can handle. The columns break from the force of impact.

How to Turn Your Fist Into a Block-Breaking Machine

discovermagazine.com...


What happens after contact is also very important. All materials are at least slightly elastic: Whack them in the right spot and they will start to oscillate. “If you tweak a rubber band it goes up and down, and the same is true if you tweak a board or a brick with a much greater force,” Feld says. “When they reach their elastic limits, they start to yield. In other words, they break.”

a reply to: Salander

If aluminum can penetrate steel as you claim, why do they make hammers out of steel instead of aluminum?

Why don't they make anti-tank rounds out of aluminum? Why don't they make saw blades out of aluminum?

Such absurdity you offer.

That's just being obtuse.
There are tons of examples of less dense objects doing severe damage to denser objects.

A quick one is jumpers landing on cars from many stories up.

a reply to: neutronflux

would not take out a vertical column? it sure would. In fact, let's take ALL these vertical columns out and not A column.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

And I can find written documents people swear the earth is flat.

I guess here is something else you can find “interesting” and imply is “credible” on amazon

www.amazon.com...=asc_df_1943056013/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=241914467431&hvpos=1o1&h vnetw=g&hvrand=15211834265286863871&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9016695&hvtargid=pla-436418976703&psc=1

The Greatest Lie on Earth: Proof That Our World Is Not a Moving Globe

Maybe you could start a new thread, creating an actual argument with evidence?

Congressional 9/11 enquiry found evidence linking Saudi Arabia to 9/11. You should be asking why the White House gave protection to them. Remember all the Saudis who was allowed to leave the country after 9/11?

Omar al-Bayoumi ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_al-Bayoumi was a Saudi spy and worked for Saudi aviation. It was reported he met two of the Pentagon hijackers when they arrived in the country. He funded the operation through Prince Bandar wife account. It was all done through the Regis bank.

FBI claims they don't know who funded the attack in reality they know and covered up because 9/11 was a Saudi and Neocon operation. They needed an event to get into Iraq and Bin Laden was the patsy.

The hijackers pilots were not bad pilots they were trained in the deserts of Arizona. It was a covert operation just like the Iran-contra affair. Remember the CIA allowed coc aine into the country so they could fund rebels in South America. CIA is a mob that pretends its an intelligence agency.

By the way, the Saudis wanted to be rid of Al Qaeda so it was a perfect setup. Al Qaeda was threatening the royal family and was targeting the country.

neutronflux depends on what they used. Explosions can be set to go off wirelessly. This 2001, not the 1970's.

We don't know how far the planes penetrated inside the building and how deep was the fires. Smoke from outside doesn't reveal much about the extent of the fires inside the twin towers.

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: Ghostsinthefog
So just starting to really take a look at, dig into the 9/11 worm hole.

The first question that comes to mind is to all the people that believe this was ab inside job. Now i understand both believe the towers were hit, but was also rigged with explosives.

To rig a tower with such a gigantic explosive device couldn't have gone unnoticed, so is there ant any evidence or testimony stating there was weird goings on... example... uncharted construction on the lower levels etc?

When you control the security at the facility, as Stratasec/Securacom did, preparing the facility would be a cake walk, pardon the pun. Some elevator company had been doing work for months before, and tenants received notice advising that on the weekend before, the power to the buildings would be shut off for some period of time.

Skeptics ignore this but it was reported elevator work was ongoing during the summer of 2001. You have access to the steel core through the shafts in the elevator. And who was going to be suspicious of workers coming and going pre 9/11 come on now!

a reply to: Jesushere

We don't know how far the planes penetrated inside the building and how deep was the fires. Smoke from outside doesn't reveal much about the extent of the fires inside the twin towers.

But the helicopters did see inside and reported the extent of the fires.