See other 9/11 Articles
Title: 9/11 UAL 175 Plane on Radar AFTER It Has 'Crashed' Into The WTC; (MSNBC)
Source:
,
URL Source: http://,
Published: Mar 16, 2009
Author: msnbc
Post Date: 2009-03-16 13:04:41 by Artisan
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 12099
Comments: 607
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-535) not displayed.
.
.
.
#536. To: Kamala (#529)
This is directly opposite of the speculation of FEMA Thanks much for the link to that...I will read it through tomorrow when my brain is fresh. Interesting above quote...FEMA "speculation"...ain't that a dandy one?!
Tell me that you didn't just respond to me by saying: "Liar!!! I never posted that post about WTC on that other thread that I claimed I did not post but that both you and I have posted again here!!!!"
Because they were made of cement ond the force of the impact obliderated them. What do you ***think*** a good part of that "dust" was? That said, when the Towers collapsed, the debris was up to 14 stories tall.
??? Non Sequiter.
"Satan / Cheney in "08" What you **think** that phrase means, it doesn't.
War. You somehow posted to me in error. And how you presume to know what I think.... Shows a lot of arrogance.
"Satan / Cheney in "08" Nope. It traced back to you. You misused "non sequiter" [sic - which means you misspelled it too]. I HAVE the facts.
'Pancaked' Hahahaha Did you read that war? wudidiz is right. If they pancaked then they would all be stacked up at the bottom. They didn't pancake at all, they exploded mid-air like the rest of the building did.
God is always good!
Nope you didn't, not correctly. Yes I misspelled the Latin. And to be clear, I have no problem with you arguing about 9-11, the more honest info the better. I just had no connection with the "pancake" stuff, and don't know why I was pinged.
"Satan / Cheney in "08" Because they were made of cement ond (sic) the force of the impact obliderated (sic) them. This is what a building whose floors pancaked during an earthquake looks like. As you can see, the cement was not obliterated by the force of the collisions on each floor. The WTC tower's floors were blown up just like the rest of the building was in each building.
God is always good!
Yes I misspelled the Latin. Wha,...chuckle...huh? I didn't trace it back to you but it was you who misspelled it? Moonies...you just cannot make their shit up...
Ha... HA Ha... HA HA Ha... HA HA HA... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... Hey Moonbat...why didn't the explosion and fire that by everyone's observation reached the core, set off any of those charges?
They did. It just didn't set off enough of them to bring the building down so they had to do it later via remote control. Oh, and that explosion, the big fire ball of jet fuel seen outside the WTC tower after impact, was mostly outside the building. If it were mostly inside the building then no one on any of those floors would have survived it. But many did.
God is always good!
If the floors 'pancaked', then why was there no stack of floors at the bottom? Because they were made of cement ond the force of the impact obliderated them. What do you ***think*** a good part of that "dust" was? That said, when the Towers collapsed, the debris was up to 14 stories tall. war posted on 2009-03-22 8:36:00 ET Reply Trace Private Reply Above is the post you made to me, WAR. And it makes no sense to me, as I had nothing to do with whatever that discussion was. And BTW, you misspelled several words there, and they were not Latin. And please note that I am not assuming that I know what you think. So quit being so full of yourself.
"Satan / Cheney in "08" Say "Good Night, Gracie"...
Yep....I limit my typos to one language...
You are retarded, do you know that?
God is always good!
Sad the guy who believes that they built remote control redundancy into plane crash activated set charges and but doesn't understand the force/energy dynamic of a falling multi-ton structure on cement...
Another one who ***thinks*** that nothing exploded inside the building... But I'm retarded...
Another one who ***thinks*** that nothing exploded inside the building...even though he ***thinks*** that the charges were set to explode on impact... But I'm retarded...
Not only are you retarded, you stutter too.
God is always good!
Not me, I misspell in all the languages I write.
"Satan / Cheney in "08" No, they weren't set to explode on impact, but still some went off in the area, just not enough to compromise the structural integrity of the very well built structures the WTC towers were.
God is always good!
So you're saying that there is NO way someone with intimate knowledge of the aircraft systems could design a device to completely take over any and all systems, and that there would be no way to stop the pilot from isolating the problem and disabling the device?
So you're saying that there is NO way someone with intimate knowledge of the aircraft systems could design a device to completely take over any and all systems, and that there would be no way to stop the pilot from isolating the problem and disabling the device? Why does everyone assume that there even was a crew, or passengers? This could have been a military plane disguised as a UAL plane.
God is always good!
And your evidence for this is what?
Um...because people bought tickets and boarded the plane in Boston.
I can't understand why SKYDRIFTER hasn't answered any of my questions here concerning his view of the possibility of remote control being used in the 9/11 attacks.
There's no evidence they boarded the planes, and I don't think there's any evidence they bought tickets either, but I could be mistaken. Why don't you post some links that prove they actually bought tickets. As I said, there is NO proof that they actually boarded the planes, but you're more than welcome to look for it.
Hey imbecile, check this out. This is a bridge in Lebanon that was hit by missiles from Israeli jets. This bridge was much higher than the 1 floor distance in the WTC Towers. Still yet, even after falling hundreds of feet and having an actual missile hit it, it did NOT obliterate upon impact to fine dust. You might want to go back and check your physics book, you just screwed up big time. Thank god you are not a structural engineer. :)
God is always good!
Yeah, that solves it then, why didn't I think of that? They told us those planes hit the towers and those people were on the planes and no one has seen them since so that must mean those planes hit the WTC towers. <.sarcasm> It must mean that only if you are using kindergarten logic. And you are not capable of much more than that.
God is always good!
I don't know. I know he was a former commercial airline pilot, but why he thinks the actual planes taking off from Logan airport with passengers and crew on them hit the buildings is anybody's guess. All we have to go on is the word of the media and government and they have lied constantly about 9/11 so why would they tell the truth about the planes that really hit the towers? Unless Skydrifter has some information we don't have then it is very strange of him to dismiss the missile guidance or remote control possibility on the planes that actually hit the WTC towers. So far he has not presented any information that would rule this out.
God is always good!
Riiight...because American Airlaines and UAL are both in on the conspiracy. s
How many tons fell upon it to make it fall?
If you shit in one hand and wish in the other which hand weighs more? That's kindergarten logic too.
You surely don't think that the entire WTC structure above the impact zone fell straight down at once, do you? Not even the government's loony theory goes that far. The government's theory says one floor fell, which led to the next floor falling in a domino fashion. When they say a floor fell, they mean just the floor fell, not the entire structure above it. You really need to know what it is you are trying to defend before you start defending it.
God is always good!
As is apparent from the videos it most certainly appeared to do so as it was the support [a combo of the trusses weakened by fire and the outer support walls bowing inward] below the level above the imapact zone that gave way thus allowing the top to fll as it was detached from the bottom. Some of the "Troofers" try to fashion the fiction that because the below impact trusses failed that the top trusses had to fail too. Unfortunately for them [and you] there is no aspect of the WTC's engineering to support that contention.
Oh, so that's what you think. Hmmm, that is a very far fetched theory to say the least, but at least you are honest about it.
God is always good!
Perhaps you could tell us about the coincidence of the crashed floors with respect to the upgrading of fireproofing Oh, by the way, I have it that you like to troll.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. - Henry Louis Mencken
trusses weakened by fire? I thought that you said that fire wouldn't weaken steel? Or was it jet-a that wouldn't weaken steel, only that some office furnishings would weaken steel. Rather confusing. Keep going with this trolling. It's amusing. ...outer support walls bowing inward...> Now that's a howl.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. - Henry Louis Mencken
It's the magic wet noodle theory, don't ya know? You see, first the sagging floors sheered off the attaching bolts from the perimeter columns, but then that was proven false so those same magic wet noodle floors sagged and instead of sheering a couple of 5/8" bolts, they pulled in 1/2" walled box perimeter columns. Thems was mighty strong wet noodles.
The NIST finding requires that the floor end connections held and that the sagging floors remained connected to the columns.
#537. To: litus (#535)
#538. To: tom007 (#533)
If the floors 'pancaked', then why was there no stack of floors at the bottom?
#539. To: war (#538)
What do you ***think*** a good part of that "dust" was?
#540. To: tom007 (#539)
Non Sequiter
#541. To: war (#540)
What you **think** that phrase means, it doesn't.
#542. To: tom007 (#541)
You somehow posted to me in error.
#543. To: war, wudidiz (#532)
If the floors 'pancaked', then why was there no stack of floors at the bottom?
#544. To: war (#542)
(Edited)
Nope. It traced back to you
#545. To: war, tom007 (#538)
>> If the floors 'pancaked', then why was there no stack of floors at the bottom?
#546. To: tom007 (#544)
Nope you didn't, not correctly.
#547. To: RickyJ (#545)
The WTC tower's floors were blown up just like the rest of the building was in each building.
#548. To: war (#547)
(Edited)
Hey Moonbat...why didn't the explosion and fire that by everyone's observation reached the core, set off any of those charges?
#549. To: war (#538)
(Edited)
#538. To: tom007 (#533)
#550. To: RickyJ (#548)
They did. It just didn't set off enough of them to bring the building down so they had to do it later via remote control.
#551. To: tom007 (#549)
And BTW, you misspelled several words there, and they were not Latin.
#552. To: war (#550)
Say "Good Night, Gracie"...
#553. To: RickyJ (#552)
You are retarded, do you know that?
#554. To: RickyJ (#548)
Oh, and that explosion, the big fire ball of jet fuel seen outside the WTC tower after impact, was mostly outside the building.
#555. To: RickyJ (#548)
Oh, and that explosion, the big fire ball of jet fuel seen outside the WTC tower after impact, was mostly outside the building.
#556. To: war (#555)
But I'm retarded...
#557. To: war (#551)
Yep....I limit my typos to one language...
#558. To: war (#555)
(Edited)
Another one who ***thinks*** that nothing exploded inside the building...even though he ***thinks*** that the charges were set to explode on impact...
#559. To: SKYDRIFTER, Artisan, Christine, Jethro Tull, It istoolate, All (#530)
If the aircraft was "remote controlled," the pilots would have the ability to either override the electronics, or at least radio that they were in dire peril, via radio, or the transponder.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#560. To: SKYDRIFTER, FormerLurker (#559)
>> If the aircraft was "remote controlled," the pilots would have the ability to either override the electronics, or at least radio that they were in dire peril, via radio, or the transponder.
#561. To: RickyJ (#558)
#562. To: RickyJ (#560)
Why does everyone assume that there even was a crew, or passengers?
#563. To: RickyJ, SKYDRIFTER (#560)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#564. To: war, RickyJ (#562)
Um...because people bought tickets and boarded the plane in Boston.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#565. To: war (#553)
Sad the guy who believes that they built remote control redundancy into plane crash activated set charges and but doesn't understand the force/energy dynamic of a falling multi-ton structure on cement...
#566. To: war (#562)
Um...because people bought tickets and boarded the plane in Boston.
#567. To: FormerLurker (#563)
I can't understand why SKYDRIFTER hasn't answered any of my questions here concerning his view of the possibility of remote control being used in the 9/11 attacks.
#568. To: FormerLurker (#564)
There's no evidence they boarded the planes
#569. To: RickyJ (#565)
#570. To: RickyJ (#566)
It must mean that only if you are using kindergarten logic.
#571. To: war (#569)
How many tons fell upon it to make it fall?
#572. To: RickyJ (#571)
You surely don't think that the entire WTC structure above the impact zone fell straight down at once
#573. To: war (#572)
As is apparent from the videos it most certainly appeared to do so as it was the support [a combo of the trusses weakened by fire and the outer support walls bowing inward] below the level above the imapact zone that gave way thus allowing the top to fll as it was detached from the bottom.
#574. To: war (#572)
(Edited)
#575. To: war (#572)
As is apparent from the videos it most certainly appeared to do so as it was the support [a combo of the trusses weakened by fire and the outer support walls bowing inward]
#576. To: rack42 (#575)
outer support walls bowing inward
This guy may be prowling 4um: |
Morehead City Concerts Summer 2009
.
.
.
Comments (577 - 607) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest