News

**SexualChocolate**

OP?

where did you go?

**smerve**

Who did 9/11 and how did they do it?

[Image: 5421_4F70C766.jpg]

**Markoff Chaney** lop guest User ID: 85825 03-26-2012 10:24 PM

SexualChocolate Wrote:

Embry-Riddle aerospace
engineer Wrote:
SexualChocolate Wrote:
you say a plane could not cause damage to a building like they did? Am I getting you right?

just because the plane is made of aluminum and the building steel therefor the building could not be damaged by the lighter "softer plane"?

Real Boeing Engineer? uh huh?

Ever go out to a shooting range? You can take a bullet made of lead and copper, both much softer and weaker than steel and if you move that bullet fast enough you can punch holes through steel plates all day long. It's called kinetic energy.

Now, a fully loaded 747 weighs about 735,000 lbs. This traveling at approx. 500 miles an hour would have an approx. kinetic energy of

91,875,000,000 lbs.

yes, that say's over 91 BILLION lbs.

and you claim that this would not cause damage to a steel building.
What is truely amazing sir, is that the building did not collapse instantly.

don't believe me, do the math yourself.

http://www.ehow.com/how_4500597_calculat...nergy.html

You shill, sir. Kinetic energy is only part of the equation, and I suspect that you know it. I am one of the engineers involved in Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. http://www.ae911truth.org/

Does an entire dense wall collapse if you hit it with a bullet that has a tiny fraction of the surface area of the wall? No. At best it will go into the wall or perhaps through it with a clean hole along its trajectory, but it will not decimate the entire wall into rubble. Even if it could occur, the debris would be scattered for thousands of yards. Not into a vertical pile of rubble.

And this doesn't even begin to explain how Jet A fuel managed to melt the entire concrete & metal building frame so evenly and quickly that it collapsed into a perfect vertical pile at freefall speed. Twice. Ridiculous. Never in history has a plane crash brought down a building, especially one (or two) of the marvels of over-engineering.

Never mind Building 7. That's just beyond the realm of reality. I can't believe anyone with an IQ over 50 bought that explanation.

We were witness to one of the most sophisticated psyops in history.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guar...ow-hot.htm

wow. your an engineer. educated idiot is what that means in non- bullshit terms. I would take you more seriously but calling me a "shill" right out the gate gets you no where.have fun in your disillusioned little world.

The truth it, it has never happened before. Planes have never been flown into buildings that size before. All your speculation and "expert opinion" is that, just an opinion.
You can't "prove" any more than I can as to what happened and what did not.

dead horse. still dead. will alway's be dead.

Yopu didn't hear about the Empire State building incident?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUlWpqLsOVs

Funny, that didn't collapse into its own footprint

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 43481 03-26-2012 10:24 PM

SexualChocolate Wrote:

Embry-Riddle aerospace
engineer Wrote:
SexualChocolate Wrote:
you say a plane could not cause damage to a building like they did? Am I getting you right?

just because the plane is made of aluminum and the building steel therefor the building could not be damaged by the lighter "softer plane"?

Real Boeing Engineer? uh huh?

Ever go out to a shooting range? You can take a bullet made of lead and copper, both much softer and weaker than steel and if you move that bullet fast enough you can punch holes through steel plates all day long. It's called kinetic energy.

Now, a fully loaded 747 weighs about 735,000 lbs. This traveling at approx. 500 miles an hour would have an approx. kinetic energy of

91,875,000,000 lbs.

yes, that say's over 91 BILLION lbs.

and you claim that this would not cause damage to a steel building.
What is truely amazing sir, is that the building did not collapse instantly.

don't believe me, do the math yourself.

http://www.ehow.com/how_4500597_calculat...nergy.html

You shill, sir. Kinetic energy is only part of the equation, and I suspect that you know it. I am one of the engineers involved in Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. http://www.ae911truth.org/

Does an entire dense wall collapse if you hit it with a bullet that has a tiny fraction of the surface area of the wall? No. At best it will go into the wall or perhaps through it with a clean hole along its trajectory, but it will not decimate the entire wall into rubble. Even if it could occur, the debris would be scattered for thousands of yards. Not into a vertical pile of rubble.

And this doesn't even begin to explain how Jet A fuel managed to melt the entire concrete & metal building frame so evenly and quickly that it collapsed into a perfect vertical pile at freefall speed. Twice. Ridiculous. Never in history has a plane crash brought down a building, especially one (or two) of the marvels of over-engineering.

Never mind Building 7. That's just beyond the realm of reality. I can't believe anyone with an IQ over 50 bought that explanation.

We were witness to one of the most sophisticated psyops in history.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guar...ow-hot.htm

wow. your an engineer. educated idiot is what that means in non- bullshit terms. I would take you more seriously but calling me a "shill" right out the gate gets you no where.have fun in your disillusioned little world.

The truth it, it has never happened before. Planes have never been flown into buildings that size before. All your speculation and "expert opinion" is that, just an opinion.
You can't "prove" any more than I can as to what happened and what did not.

dead horse. still dead. will alway's be dead.

1,600 highly educated, certified & experienced architects & engineers say you're an idiot, and I agree with them, lambchop.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Citbpoeh

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 43481 03-26-2012 10:34 PM

5 stars, OP.

More proof of the lie: In 1992, a 747 crashes into an apartment building; guess what didn't happen? It looks like the trade center towers were not as well-built as apartment buildings.

http://www.nycaviation.com/2010/10/on-th...tober-4th/

Photo of the minimal damage done by the massive 747: http://nycaviation.com/newspage/wp-conte...crash1.jpg

**Currahee**

SexualChocolate Wrote:

you say a plane could not cause damage to a building like they did? Am I getting you right?

just because the plane is made of aluminum and the building steel therefor the building could not be damaged by the lighter "softer plane"?

Real Boeing Engineer? uh huh?

Ever go out to a shooting range? You can take a bullet made of lead and copper, both much softer and weaker than steel and if you move that bullet fast enough you can punch holes through steel plates all day long. It's called kinetic energy.

Now, a fully loaded 747 weighs about 735,000 lbs. This traveling at approx. 500 miles an hour would have an approx. kinetic energy of

91,875,000,000 lbs.

yes, that say's over 91 BILLION lbs.

and you claim that this would not cause damage to a steel building.
What is truely amazing sir, is that the building did not ~~collapse~~ topple instantly.

don't believe me, do the math yourself.

http://www.ehow.com/how_4500597_calculat...nergy.html

Agree with all except what I fixed above for you.

Peace

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 43481 03-26-2012 10:38 PM

Currahee Wrote:

SexualChocolate Wrote:
you say a plane could not cause damage to a building like they did? Am I getting you right?

just because the plane is made of aluminum and the building steel therefor the building could not be damaged by the lighter "softer plane"?

Real Boeing Engineer? uh huh?

Ever go out to a shooting range? You can take a bullet made of lead and copper, both much softer and weaker than steel and if you move that bullet fast enough you can punch holes through steel plates all day long. It's called kinetic energy.

Now, a fully loaded 747 weighs about 735,000 lbs. This traveling at approx. 500 miles an hour would have an approx. kinetic energy of

91,875,000,000 lbs.

yes, that say's over 91 BILLION lbs.

and you claim that this would not cause damage to a steel building.
What is truely amazing sir, is that the building did not ~~collapse~~ topple instantly.

don't believe me, do the math yourself.

http://www.ehow.com/how_4500597_calculat...nergy.html

Agree with all except what I fixed above for you.

When I go target shooting, it's weird how the target doesn't collapse into a pile of confetti when I hit the bullseye. It just leaves a little hole. Guess targets are built better than skyscrapers.

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 40036 03-26-2012 11:51 PM

LoP Guest Wrote:

nibiru2012 Wrote:
I don't buy all the 9/11 crap either, buy jets weigh tons , the jet engines weigh tons , plus speed , could cause damage

To scale, the aircraft weight is negligible. Much like a mosquito trying to fly through your arm.

I think the planes would have had to be travelling much faster in order to penetrate the way they did.

If the planes were heavier they could penetrate, but then they wouldn't lift off with the same engines, nor travel 550mph. Maybe if they were reinforced planes with much much better engines they could pull it off.

There should be an equation somewhere for this. How energy does an aluminum object have to have to do significant damage to steel-reinforced concrete. Even when you know that, the shape and structural factors will make a big difference in how an airplane crashes.

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 43481 03-26-2012 11:59 PM

LoP Guest Wrote:

5 stars, OP.

More proof of the lie: In 1992, a 747 crashes into an apartment building; guess what didn't happen? It looks like the trade center towers were not as well-built as apartment buildings.

http://www.nycaviation.com/2010/10/on-th...tober-4th/

Photo of the minimal damage done by the massive 747: http://nycaviation.com/newspage/wp-conte...crash1.jpg

For some reason this hasn't been mentioned much (ever?) in the press. There is a precendent for a jumbo jet crashing into a large building. And the building didn't collapse.

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 69974 03-27-2012 02:06 AM

The fundamental problem with 9/11 is that it could not have happened as depicted in video. Experts around the world knows this, but remain quiet to avoid problems. For the buildings to fall as they did was a perfectly executed "controlled demolition" activating the construction designs faults at conception. Even under extreme conditions, the planes should have only collapsed or cave in the point of impact - penetration, but not the total collapse of the building. So many people knows this.

**DanceChillGroove**

DanceChillGroove Wrote:

Embry-Riddle aerospace
engineer Wrote:
...I am one of the engineers involved in Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. http://www.ae911truth.org/

>snip<

Never mind Building 7. That's just beyond the realm of reality. I can't believe anyone with an IQ over 50 bought that explanation.

We were witness to one of the most sophisticated psyops in history.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guar...ow-hot.htm

Has your organization reached a broad consensus as to the most likely sequence of events that brought the buildings down?

Do any of your conclusions point to a perpetrator?

After all the thousands of hours of research you guys must have poured into this, do you have any idea who did it? Maybe a top two or three list of most likely suspects?

I guess this answers my questions re who they think the perp was...

We at AE911Truth are technical and building professionals. We do not speculate about who may have been responsible for destroying these buildings. However, we do point to overwhelming evidence of a cover-up of the crime. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was tasked by Congress to uncover how the three skyscrapers “collapsed”. The WTC Reports that they provided in order to prop up the impossible hypothesis of collapse by fire were fraudulent.

......

The topic of the motives behind the demolitions raises non-technical questions that are outside of our expertise and the scope of our examination. While we know that the WTC catastrophe has been used as justification to launch wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and curtail civil liberties, it is up to criminal investigators, not architects and engineers, to identify motive.

......

Since the crime of explosive destruction has been confirmed, it is time for government officials to heed international calls for a real investigation. Until such an inquiry is carried out, the effort to determine the identities of the criminals is left to those willing to research and speculate.

......

Those who wish to do further research on this matter should follow the canons of criminal investigations and ask the tough questions, such as “Who had the means, the opportunity, and motive?” and “Qui bono – who benefited?”

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-sectio...d-why.html

**Username** lop guest User ID: 70781 03-27-2012 06:23 AM

Strategos Wrote:

Why doesn't someone recreate the event? Have an actual 747 fly into a skyscraper and see what happens?

A remote-controlled empty plane and an empty skyscraper scheduled for demolition, of course.

lol

we would lose too many americans