Thread in Support of the Official Story

reply to post by hooper


According to Hamilton, they "thought" there was an airplane at the Pentagon and he was somewhat sure that there was some wreckage, just not very much of it. I mean, the guy practically admits that the whole story is total bunk. You really should read that interview. Why anybody at all would support this official bunk is totally beyond me.Not even the people who cooked it together seem to take it very seriously.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by galdur


Ah yes, the effect that keeps airplanes from ever crashing. Someone does need to do their homework and its not Hooper, and its not me.

Originally posted by galdur
reply to post by fooks

 

Steel is steel and kerosene is kerosene. If a kerosene fire can melt steel there should be reports somewhere about this. I can´t find any. Can you? Can anybody here?

He said soften.

reply to post by galdur

I mean, the guy practically admits that the whole story is total bunk.

No he doesn't. What he does do is dismiss all the nutty conspiracy fantasies.

GALDUR

Are you a licensed pilot??

Who care what the 9/11 Commission had to say about physics? It would be the equivalent of complaining that the NIST reports didn't answer how the 19 hijackers were allowed into the US in the first place. It's completely out of their respective scopes.

Originally posted by galdur
reply to post by hooper

 

I keep telling you faith-based 9/11 Liars to check elementary physics. Then you would discover concepts such as Ground Effect.

Well then you should be able to present the "elementary" calculations that support your claim. I mean if an engineer says that Bridge "X" has a limit of 10 tons then the engineer presents calculations to support that statement.

All I ever hear is physics this and physcis that and not one single line of calculations.

reply to post by hooper


Absolutely not. If you have trouble reading have someone read it for you.

reply to post by hooper


It´s physically impossible for structures that are reinforced, to prevent or at the very least delay collapse in any gravity driven event, to fall through themselves practically without resistance (offering about as much resistance as air) in a gravity driven event. I´m not going to calculate this obvious fact for you bible bangers. Since you believe that kerosene fire can melt steel you´ll believe anything. The official story assumes that the towers collapsed in a gravity driven event and is therefore by definition a lie.

If you believe the official story, you can not also believe that parachutes work. Take your pick.

reply to post by hooper


I don't think he is able to do basic physics calculations.

I can't even get him to answer a simple yes or no question.

Originally posted by galdur
reply to post by hooper

 

Absolutely not. If you have trouble reading have someone read it for you.

You can call me a liar, infer that I am illiterate, call people that agree with me retarded but at the end of the day you have nothing to offer. Tell you what, write to Lee Hamilton and ask him if he supports investigating whether or not a plane hit the Pentagon. Ask him if he supports investigating whether there were explosives hidden the buildings of the World Trade Center on 9/11/01. He is still around as far as I know.

reply to post by hooper


Well, the guy was claiming that kerosene fire can melt steel which certainly seems to infer that they´re retarded and also he seemed to imply that jet engines created that steel melting temperature in the towers.

The opposite of Truther is Liar, right?

reply to post by galdur


You still didn't answer the questions.

And what faith am I?

reply to post by galdur

The opinions of you faith-based fruitcakes are supported here by a small minority on the fringe, see a recent survey.

Ah, now we get to add "fruitcake" to the litany of insults.

Please provide some calculations that would prove there is a physical speed/altitude limit for the style of aircraft involved in Flight 77.