Just how planes have you seen crash into buildings?
9/11 Conspiracies
- Thread starter SaulToPaul 2
- Start date
I note that they collapse sequence and duration wrong. The article draws erroneous conclusion because they did what they accused the NIST of doing; they ignored data inconvenient to their point of view.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
None. Why does this one collision not resemble any other collision that has ever occurred?
You have to admit, these are pretty unique collisions. And these are the only ones that have such extensive video coverage. If you have never seen any other planes flying into buildings, how can say that the explosion doesn't look right? You have no basis of comparison.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Agreed, but why is a plane flying into a building unlike any other collision ever recorded?
It looked like a video game.
Because this is unlike any other collision ever recorded. One thing that made these different was that the hijackers intentionally chose cross country flight departing from New York because the planes would have a full fuel load. Fully loaded, that is about 23,980 gallons (162,824 pound) of jet fuel. That is a lot of fuel to spread fires through the buildings.
This is way off topic, and a shot-in-the-dark, but it might be what you're getting at.
Do you have a mental picture of what a huge asteroid would look like from space, impacting the earth? Beyond the miles of hardened crust, underneath everything is an un-interrupted sea of molten rock, all of the earth's crust (including it's oceans, which sit atop the crust like giant puddles) merely floats upon this sea. If a huge bolide impacted the planet at astronomical speed, it would pierce directly through to the earth's magma without stopping at the crust. Does this help explain what you're seeing in the 9/11 impacts that doesn't make sense to you?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
And here we've been for over a decade now ready to argue about it.
Here's to another decade :cheers:
Which one? This happened in New York City. There were a few people around.
There are ballistic missiles that can be loaded with multiple MT warheads that can be deployed in flight, delivering each warhead to a different target along its trajectory. There is a trajectory where a single missile could deliver MT warheads to each of the following cities. Moncton, Boston, Providence (outskirts), New York City, Philadelphia, and Washington DC. And with the speed of those things---they fly much faster than even a bullet fired from a high-powered rifle, from start to finish would be single-digit minutes, and it'd all be over for the Northeastern seaboard, and on the wrong day most of Washington's elected officials would be there and fall.
As troubling as that is, now, if you've got a globe handy, and a string or rubber band, find the trajectory and follow it southwesterly. And then northeasterly. Do it a few different times so you get a range of different answers to this question: From what countries could someone with one of these missiles launch and get close to that trajectory? And if you do it right, I think it explains a lot.
How so? Digital artifacts?
Are you really saying that our video games are so close to reality that we can't tell the difference?
Do what right? Explains what?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
If you have a globe handy, and a string or a rubber band, make a geodesic. Start at the line between Moncton and Washington DC and go northeasterly until it gets interesting, do it just for grins.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
I was thinking of Donkey Kong, when Mario collides with a barrel.
Zeke
Well-known member