LoP Guest  Wrote:

DanceChillGroove  Wrote:

OP, no one on this board buys the official explanation. If you're trying to make a point, please feel free to do so.

Apparently "no one" is no longer equivalent to "zero". http://lunaticoutpost.com/Topic-9-11-Air...tor?page=5

Chrissake. Ok, no one but Cooter Brown, maybe Joe Neubarth and the odd Guest or two.

So then, semantics aside, point. Do you have one?

Zero Point  Wrote:

barbsat  Wrote:

Joe now claims God talks to him and he is to be the next Moses. I think it is safe to say his opinion on anything matters very little now.

I missed that one!
Delusions of adequacy....

It was in this post.
http://lunaticoutpost.com/Topic-I-alread...ight-wrist

LoP Guest  Wrote:

DanceChillGroove  Wrote:

OP, no one on this board buys the official explanation. If you're trying to make a point, please feel free to do so.

Apparently "no one" is no longer equivalent to "zero". http://lunaticoutpost.com/Topic-9-11-Air...tor?page=5

Chrissake. Ok, no one but Cooter Brown, maybe Joe Neubarth and the odd Guest or two.

So then, semantics aside, point. Do you have one?

Since everyone here (except maybe one or two fruitcakes) is able to properly understand that airplanes did not bring down the buildings, I am curious how many will insist that planes were used in the attacks?

All of the plane-strike videos show impossible cartoon crash physics:
a hollow aluminum tube slicing cleanly through and disappearing inside the building. In other words, fake!

Any comment, Mr. Boeing engineer?

Why use planes at all, since they can't fell the building? It is more efficient to CGI them in to video of the exploding tower, and plant a few phony eyewitnesses!

Aircraft are nothing more than lightweight, hollow tubes, kind of like an empty coke can. Try to throw an empty coke can through a steel reinforced brick wall and let me know how that works out for you.

Or a full coke can.

Or a hairspray can.

Or another brick.

Or a brick with a firecracker tied to it.

Or anything a fraction of the size of the building itself.

Let me know if your brick wall collapses into a perfectly tiny pile of smoldering rubble.

A picture is worth thousand words...

http://911logic.blogspot.com/2007/04/ear...-flat.html

Real Boeing Engineer  Wrote:

Aircraft are nothing more than lightweight, hollow tubes, kind of like an empty coke can. Try to throw an empty coke can through a steel reinforced brick wall and let me know how that works out for you.

Or a full coke can.

Or a hairspray can.

Or another brick.

Or a brick with a firecracker tied to it.

Or anything a fraction of the size of the building itself.

Let me know if your brick wall collapses into a perfectly tiny pile of smoldering rubble.

Towers weren't a brick wall, they were a glass box with a comparatively delicate metal frame for it's mass.

Sectional Density and Velocity have a great deal to do with the penetrative ability of a projectile.

A modern aluminum hunting arrow would be a better analogy than an aerosol spray can.

The towers were essentially turned into diesel fired Rocket Stoves, Diesel Fired Rocket Stoves can and do melt steel if they get too much air and fuel(even wood fuel)

You are not an engineer of any sort or you would already know this

Real Boeing Engineer  Wrote:

Aircraft are nothing more than lightweight, hollow tubes, kind of like an empty coke can. Try to throw an empty coke can through a steel reinforced brick wall and let me know how that works out for you.

Or a full coke can.

Or a hairspray can.

Or another brick.

Or a brick with a firecracker tied to it.

Or anything a fraction of the size of the building itself.

Let me know if your brick wall collapses into a perfectly tiny pile of smoldering rubble.

Towers weren't a brick wall, they were a glass box with a comparatively delicate metal frame for it's mass.

Sectional Density and Velocity have a great deal to do with the penetrative ability of a projectile.

A modern aluminum hunting arrow would be a better analogy than an aerosol spray can.

The towers were essentially turned into diesel fired Rocket Stoves, Diesel Fired Rocket Stoves can and do melt steel if they get too much air and fuel(even wood fuel)

You are not an engineer of any sort or you would already know this

Ignore the shill.

Boeing,

Would you agree that the videos must be fake since they do not show real crash physics?

Free Range Humans  Wrote:

Real Boeing Engineer  Wrote:

Aircraft are nothing more than lightweight, hollow tubes, kind of like an empty coke can. Try to throw an empty coke can through a steel reinforced brick wall and let me know how that works out for you.

Or a full coke can.

Or a hairspray can.

Or another brick.

Or a brick with a firecracker tied to it.

Or anything a fraction of the size of the building itself.

Let me know if your brick wall collapses into a perfectly tiny pile of smoldering rubble.

Towers weren't a brick wall, they were a glass box with a comparatively delicate metal frame for it's mass.

Sectional Density and Velocity have a great deal to do with the penetrative ability of a projectile.

A modern aluminum hunting arrow would be a better analogy than an aerosol spray can.

The towers were essentially turned into diesel fired Rocket Stoves, Diesel Fired Rocket Stoves can and do melt steel if they get too much air and fuel(even wood fuel)

You are not an engineer of any sort or you would already know this

If I fired my bow at a steel beam the arrow would shatter.

LoP Guest  Wrote:

LoP Guest  Wrote:

To scale, the aircraft weight is negligible.

NO IT'S NOT.

YES IT IS.