IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

7 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Some Say Aluminum Planes Can't Penetrate Steel., How about pumpkins ?

Rickysa
post Jul 29 2009, 03:38 PM
Post #51





Group: Contributor
Posts: 289
Joined: 18-February 08
From: USA: N.C.
Member No.: 2,762



A tornado can push a pine needle through a wall.....just sayin'

Quote from Hurricane Andrew survivor, which spawned a F4 twister:

"I still shudder thinking about seeing a georgia pine needle stuck through both sides of a wall like a dart."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post Jul 29 2009, 04:06 PM
Post #52


dig deeper
Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 1,033
Joined: 16-October 06
From: dc
Member No.: 96



quest, allow me to clarify: im not saying the gash was made by explosives, no. the plane itself tore through the exterior of the building leaving a gash. what im saying was missing in action, was most of the rigid structural elements BEHIND/INSIDE the facade. the columns and floor sections that the plane should have met, which in turn should have slowed at least some of the plane, particularly the length-running frame rails/members that would have met with these solid concrete floor sections and rigid columns. since the plane went in with ease and no resistance, i think the likeliest suspicion would be that there was nothing behind that facade to slow the plane down.

i could guess that plane wings could or couldnt rip thru the facade steel, but thats all it would be: a guess. there is nothing to rule out a modified plane, where for example, the wings were fortified to make them stronger. whatever the case, even if with a fortified plane, you still can NOT rip through solid concrete floors which are solid and secured to columns and other structural supports. so the wing strength is a seperate issue from wether or not a plane (any plane) can rip its way through two foot thick concrete. so in essence we agree what is and isnt possible for a plane to do to a building, BUT again - your reasoning for it and mine are very different. your's requires multiple variables to be overcome or controlled, while mine only requires an already rigged for demolition building, to have a smaller demolition at the time of the impact.


ps- i stand corrected about your (prior) assertions about explosions. so you agree there was explosives, yes? do you agree that the building was demo'd using conventional explosives in an unconventional (top dow) demo footprint? or do you believe DEW or NUKEs brought it down? my point was that IF a building has already been compromised, i.e. rigged for a full demo, then its a very simple task to blow up ONLY PART OF IT, a part that like a womb is hollow enough to let the plane enter smoothly.


re: fakery - we'll have to agree to disagree. with all due respect, i dont find your reasons to be persuasive quest. im willing to accept that the media (major networks) were involved or complicit in some direct fashion, fine. BUT - that still doesnt cover all the contingencies: 100's of thousands of people standing around watching the event, some of them documenting on film/video. as asked earlier: there are at least 40 clips of the impact (at least a dozen of which are shot by non-news crews), a dozen or so digital pics of the plane on final approach within yards of the tower, and there are at least 2 sets of 35mm (NONdigital) pics of the event. are all of them fake?

how is covering up all of these random sources, or faking all of them, easier than or more practical than simply hollowing out a "hangar" to allow the plane to enter the building? how is faking videos and somehow fooling 1000's of eyewitnesses easier than rigging the plane to explode into many tiny/smaller pieces (so no identifiable pieces with serial #'s could be found)? besides, even if people found plane pieces (and they did) what the heck would they know about its serial numbers? they would turn it in to the feds, and from there no one would even know what became of these pieces. so to me fakery involves so much more effort and control over so many variables (some of which are beyond any reach of the perps*), that it is logistically implausible.


*example: if even one person mananged to tape an event where NO plane flew by or in (to the wtc) and the building simply blew up on its own, if even one person had photographic/video of that, they could at any time they wanted to, make it public - WITHOUT even needing the media to do it - and blow the lid off this thing. dont you think such a tape would have popped on youtube (or wherever) by now, IF it existed? do you think that everyone who filmed the event with a camera, turned their footage in to feds/media? i guarantee there are yet unseen copies of the plane hitting the building that someone somewhere has, but isnt bothering to share. but the mathematical odds of the perps being able to confiscate/possess EVERY COPY of the event, is an almost 100% impossibility in the city of new york, where millions of people are walking the streets, many of them tourists with video/camera equipment. not to mention that the 2 buildings in question were taller than anything around and could actually be see from so many places, especially at their tops. so anyone planning the 9/11 event would have to have taken those facts/limitations/liabilities into consideration when weighing out options for what to do and how to do it, and they had to have come to the safe/logical conclusion that faking it would be less feasible than the hypothesis i've proposed.





***





lunk, i hear ya, but i think you are generalizing way too much to be accurate in this instance. the physical make-up of the objects (moving or stationary) and how they are grounded or secured, as well as the speed possibly, will directly effect the outcome of said hypotheticals. show me a pumpkin going through a 2 foot thick, by 40, by 20 concrete floor, solidly secured to rigid steel beams: it cant and wont. thats why they used to use wrecking balls made of solid steel, not pumpkins. plus - when a wrecking ball meets a concrete floor, it has to chip away at it, it caNt smash all the way through it (although yes - i understand speed/momentum is a factor).

some more about wrecking balls:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrecking_ball

wrecking ball vids:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RphvMImGe5A...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrXOx3eyoQs (important distinction: walls not floors being wrecked)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuCfDDwuTDE...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNCK4F60maU...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rx28g0aqfIk&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wntfQTuXngA...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaHWJL1obO4...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMJ8on8kX40...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_3G-OVIOgI...feature=related


now if you could get a wrecking ball up to speed (like a plane) and then shot it at a concrete floor section, you may be able to smash through it fully and successfully. the question then becomes: is a plane in any way analogous to a wrecking ball? is there anywhere on the plane solid enough to act as a wrecking ball through concrete at high speed? im not 100% certain, but i think the answer is no. the nose cone can smash in with ease. not counting the engines, the length-running frame rails are probably the sturdiest of the impacting objects (in a plane vs building), so when any of those meet with a concrete floor section of the wtc, they should slow down. the wings of course, are pretty sturdy too, considering the weight the can hold and the stresses they can withstand, so they too should slow down when meeting with columns and or (concrete) floor sections.

nonetheless, even with a plane-speed wrecking ball flying at or into the wtc, it (the concrete) still is going to display resistance. regardless of speed, the wrecking ball wont pass thru as if there is nothing there to impede it (unlike 175). the exterior facade metal, can be torn through, BUT the concrete floor sections can not, no matter how fast a plane is going. its engines might have the momentum/weight to smash through concrete partially (i doubt even they could slice all the way through), but the length of the plane (especially at the frame members) can not.

imo - a wrecking ball shot out of a canon or a munition* might be able to cut its way through a 20-40 foot long 2 foot thick section of concrete, but a plane - no.


*example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVkYe8tNZX4
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...ions/gbu-28.htm

The Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28) bomb is designed to penetrate hardened targets before exploding, capable of penetrating 100 feet of earth or 20 feet of concrete. The GBU-28 was initially developed in 1991 for penetrating hardened Iraqi command centers located deep underground. This "bunker buster" was required for special targets during the Desert Storm conflict and was designed, fabricated and loaded in record time. The GBU-28 is a laser-guided conventional munition that uses a modified Army artillery tube as the bomb body. They are fitted with GBU-27 LGB kits, 14.5 inches in diameter and almost 19 feet long. The operator illuminates a target with a laser designator and then the munition guides to a spot of laser energy reflected from the target.


edited to add: ps- im not saying a bunker buster did it. what im saying is that cutting through concrete requires something like a buster bunker, otherwise its not a simple task.

This post has been edited by paranoia: Jul 29 2009, 04:10 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aerohead
post Jul 29 2009, 04:29 PM
Post #53





Group: Core Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 13-July 09
From: State of Heightened Awareness
Member No.: 4,476



Quest,

You have to look at the outer columns that Paranoia posted.
These were 1/4" box beam colums. Their strength was VERTICAL,
not so much hoizontal and werent designed to make the buildind
Impervious to plane impacts. The designers exlained it like poking
a pencil through a screen. The screen still has most of its integrity
even though it has a hole in it. The core columns were the main support
for the towers and thats what shredded the rest of plane.
Look at the impact, its DIRECTIONAL and blows out the other side
of the building in the direction of the mass of aircraft debris, fuel and
building materials that is all flowing OUT the opposite side of the building.




Bombs cannot implode the side of the building. The plane smashed
in the outer box beams and dragged them into the building.
You would do better to look at the outter shell of the building as
a network of lighter materials than the core, which they were.
Look at the core columns compared to the outter shell columns.
A 300,000 lb. 767could easily puncture this at over 400mph.









Its like smashing you car through the store-front of an office building.
The strength is vertical not horizontal. And this was less than 30 MPH.
Imagine this @ 450 MPH...........

Mass and Inertia.........................

Clicky------> Car v/s Store Front
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Jul 29 2009, 04:31 PM
Post #54



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



QUOTE (lunk @ Aug 2 2009, 01:46 PM) *
...3. When a projectile hits a stationary object fast enough, like the side of a tower, it's the stationary object that breaks first.
The projectile stays intact, after, the stationary object has broken.


Uhm, I don't think so. Speed is relative in the physics of a collision. An egg hitting a window is the same as a window hitting an egg.

Every analogy which has been brought up in this thread is apples to oranges. We simply don't have the data to make a solid case one way or another. Seems to me this would be a pretty simple thing to model with a computer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post Jul 29 2009, 05:02 PM
Post #55


dig deeper
Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 1,033
Joined: 16-October 06
From: dc
Member No.: 96



aerohead, you make some good points. but what about the floor sections, the concrete monsters - how does a plane smash through them? here is an old post of mine that i'd like to share since it has a lot of grahics depicting my referrences:


there is more than one "egg-slicer" at work. here are some crude depictions, not to scale, but should be sufficient to illustrate my point:

exterior:



exterior and floors:



exterior, floors, and inside columns:



view from above of exterior and interior columns:



sideview of floors, columns (both interior and exterior):




so now an extremely crude depiction of the plane and what it should have impacted, which in turn should have slowed it down enough for some of it (the plane) to end up OUTSIDE of the building:


plane meeting outside columns:



plane meeting outside columns AND the floors:



plane meeting outside columns, AND the floors, AND the inside columns:



from above, plane meeting outside columns AND inside columns:



sideview of plane meeting the exterior columns, AND the floors, AND the inside columns:




as mentioned before, if all of the above were in the plane's way, eventually some parts of it would have meet with objects solid enough to slow down the plane and leave some it hanging/falling OUTSIDE of the building. i dont personally believe the plane (regardless of speed) was strong/fast enough to slice through the INTERIOR columns. plus the FLOORS would have significantly slowed down the plane, again leading to at least some part (mostly the rear) of the plane sticking out, unable to fully penetrate and disappear into the building.

the only way to accomplish what was seen, in my humble opinion of course, is IF these obstacles: inside columns and floors, were OUT OF THE WAY at impact. the exterior columns were made of thin enough metal to be penetrated, but these other obstacles would and surely should have slowed down the plane, enough to at least FORBID it from fully disappearing into the building.


continued on next post...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post Jul 29 2009, 05:03 PM
Post #56


dig deeper
Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 1,033
Joined: 16-October 06
From: dc
Member No.: 96



look at that picture of the woman standing on the outside column:



behind her is an empty cavern. there is no flame behind her, so why would she be standing on such a precarious ledge, IF she could have retreated back into the building? because the gaping emptiness behind her must have too far of a fall to allow her any sort of retreat. she was stuck on that scary ledge, because the rest of the building behind her was gone and must have fallen down (been dropped at impact via my hypothesis).


***

This post has been edited by paranoia: Jul 29 2009, 05:04 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jul 29 2009, 05:19 PM
Post #57



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (Sanders @ Jul 29 2009, 01:31 PM) *
Uhm, I don't think so. Speed is relative in the physics of a collision. An egg hitting a window is the same as a window hitting an egg.

Every analogy which has been brought up in this thread is apples to oranges. We simply don't have the data to make a solid case one way or another. Seems to me this would be a pretty simple thing to model with a computer.


But this is just what I'm getting at.

If the pumpkin hitting the steel side of the van left no remnants under the gash at the entry hole, then, the entire whole pumpkin, went into the van.

If I sling my egg hard enough it will go entirely through the window.

There needs to be a space behind the thick aluminum to allow time for the bullet to mushroom before the thin steel will stop it. If the steel is too close to the Aluminum the bullet will go through the steel, as well, as it deforms after it has punctured through the thick aluminum.

If, a glass pop bottle is thrown at another stationary glass pop bottle, it's always the stationary bottle that breaks.

So I'm questioning that notion,
from these examples.

The planes had enough velocity and mass
to completely go through the side of each building,
before breaking up, to any extent. Most of the wreckage would have been inside the towers, with some of the more heavier pieces carrying on forward, through the buildings.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aerohead
post Jul 29 2009, 06:11 PM
Post #58





Group: Core Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 13-July 09
From: State of Heightened Awareness
Member No.: 4,476



All the debate over the physics aside, since none of us
are scientists, lets think abouth this logically.

After the first plane hit.........their were hundreds, if not
thousands of video and picture camera's fixed on the Towers.
The second plane hitting was caught by every angle possible.
Including this picture that was taken by Rob Howard of
flight 175.




Would they doctor the videos and pictures with a plane that
had a pod on it ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jul 29 2009, 06:31 PM
Post #59



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



It just looks too unsymmetrical to me,
could it be a trick of the light?

Perhaps there was some additional cargo aboard the plane.
We know it was a false flag,
of course, they are going to load it
with something to make it heavier, and the impact more dramatic.

How heavy was the plane,
how fast was it going,
how much surface area did it cover.

A big plane flew into the Empire State Building, once, in the fog.
It penetrated that structure, and was probably traveling slower, than either plane that hit the towers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Jul 29 2009, 07:30 PM
Post #60





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



QUOTE (Rickysa @ Jul 29 2009, 08:38 PM) *
A tornado can push a pine needle through a wall.....just sayin'

Quote from Hurricane Andrew survivor, which spawned a F4 twister:

"I still shudder thinking about seeing a georgia pine needle stuck through both sides of a wall like a dart."


Wood is fibrous, steel is not. Next.

This post has been edited by Quest: Jul 29 2009, 07:45 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Jul 29 2009, 07:33 PM
Post #61





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



QUOTE (aerohead @ Jul 29 2009, 11:11 PM) *
All the debate over the physics aside, since none of us
are scientists, lets think abouth this logically.

After the first plane hit.........their were hundreds, if not
thousands of video and picture camera's fixed on the Towers.
The second plane hitting was caught by every angle possible.
Including this picture that was taken by Rob Howard of
flight 175.




Would they doctor the videos and pictures with a plane that
had a pod on it ?


You are using unproven evidence (the plane image) as evidence this is the plane? This is known as a circular argument. Wouldn't you have to prove a plane hit the building 1st? Wouldn't you also have to find out who supposedly took the photo? Would it matter if the photo was taken by Dick Cheney?

To your point, the "pod" is there to get people discussing what TYPE of plane as opposed to wether there was a plane at all. The ruse obviously fooled many.

This post has been edited by Quest: Jul 29 2009, 08:23 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Jul 29 2009, 07:38 PM
Post #62





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



QUOTE (lunk @ Jul 29 2009, 07:46 PM) *
1. It's the mass and speed, not the material that it is made of, that will blast a hole through steel (and concrete), as demonstrated by the pumpkin gun videos.
2. There are no debris left below the entrance of the gash,
as demonstrated by the pumpkin gun videos.
3. When a projectile hits a stationary object fast enough, like the side of a tower, it's the stationary object that breaks first.
The projectile stays intact, after, the stationary object has broken.

If I throw a raw egg, in its' shell, at a window, hard enough, it will go through that window.
You will not find any broken eggshell below the broken pane, outside,
from where it was thrown, at the window,

...though there will be quite a mess inside the living room.


1. So Lunk, your assertion is that the wings should not be expected to exhibit any FORWARD ROTATION whatsover while penetrating the building and that even the wingtips should be expected to slice through any intact steel beems it is about to encounter. Am I correct? Is this you assertion?

2. Do you also assert that at no length/section of the wings should we expect to see deceleration?



This post has been edited by Quest: Jul 29 2009, 08:21 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Jul 29 2009, 07:40 PM
Post #63





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



QUOTE (Sanders @ Jul 29 2009, 09:31 PM) *
Uhm, I don't think so. Speed is relative in the physics of a collision. An egg hitting a window is the same as a window hitting an egg.

Every analogy which has been brought up in this thread is apples to oranges. We simply don't have the data to make a solid case one way or another. Seems to me this would be a pretty simple thing to model with a computer.


Ditto.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aerohead
post Jul 29 2009, 08:39 PM
Post #64





Group: Core Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 13-July 09
From: State of Heightened Awareness
Member No.: 4,476



Quest i just told you who took the picture,
ROB HOWARD. And who said its unproven ?
Has someone proven it to be a doctored photo ?
There is not a video in existance of a NO-Plane
explosion. And if there was one in existance, it
would have hit youtube and the rest of the internet
years ago.

Paranoia,
Thanks for the illustration, but it reminds me of the
"pancake collapse" illustrations out there.
Is this what your calling the "concrete monsters" ?
33" tall trusses with 4 inches of composite construction
material on top ? Thats roughly the thickness of a typical
driveway. A 767, weighing nearly 300,000 lbs, could cut through
a driveway like it was jello.





Ref- european 9/11 citizens jury.
WTC Construction


Was the B-25 that hit the Empire State Building a fake too ?

Clicky-------> B-25 Crashes THROUGH the Empire State Building



B-25 Specs

Specifications:
North American B-25J "Mitchell" Medium Bomber
Dimensions:
Wing span: Wing Span: 67 ft 7 in (20.59 m)
Length: Length: 51 ft (15.55 m)
Height: Height: 16 ft 4 in (4.98 m)
Wing Area: 610 sq ft (56.67 mē)
Weights:
Empty: 19,530 lb (8,858 kg)
Gross: 26,122 lb (11,848 kg)
Maximum T/O: 35,000 lb. (15,876 kg)

Performance:
Maximum Speed: 285 mph (458 kph) at 15,000 ft (4,572 m)
Cruising Speed: 230 mph (370 kph)
Service Ceiling: 24,200 ft (7,376 m)
Normal Range: 1,350 miles (2,172 km) with
3,000 lbs (1,360 kg) of bombs
Maximum Range: 2,200 miles (3,540 km) with ferry tanks
Powerplant:
Two R-2600-29 Wright "Cyclone" 14 cylinder, air cooled radial
engines developing 1,700 hp (1,268 kW) each for T/O
Armament:
Eighteen .50 cal (12.7 mm) M-2 Colt-Browning machine guns.
Up to 3,200 lbs (1,451 kg) of bombs



200 MPH and 1/10 the weight of a 767 (30,000 v/s 300,000)



This post has been edited by aerohead: Jul 29 2009, 08:40 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Jul 29 2009, 09:01 PM
Post #65





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



QUOTE (aerohead @ Jul 30 2009, 01:39 AM) *
Quest i just told you who took the picture,
ROB HOWARD. And who said its unproven ?
Has someone proven it to be a doctored photo ?
There is not a video in existance of a NO-Plane
explosion. And if there was one in existance, it
would have hit youtube and the rest of the internet
years ago.


1. How do you know he took the picture? Because he said he did? Because someone else said he did? Do you understand that actual detectives have experts to analyze evidence and perform a procedure known as "establishing a chain of evidence"? Link to this procedure for this photo please.

2. Wouldn't you have to prove a plane hit the building before you set out to prove this was a photo of the supposed plane? If you continue to insist this is a photo of a plane that did
did the damage to the 2nd tower with no evidence, consider this "debate" over.

3. How do we know it's of an actual plane? The wings are asymetrical. Could this 'plane' even fly?

4. Where has it been proven this is an actual plane by experts? Links please.

Please reply point by point.

This post has been edited by Quest: Jul 29 2009, 09:33 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Jul 29 2009, 09:02 PM
Post #66





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



Aerohead, please weigh in on this post.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10774542
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aerohead
post Jul 29 2009, 09:15 PM
Post #67





Group: Core Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 13-July 09
From: State of Heightened Awareness
Member No.: 4,476



Well Quest its obvious that you are the type that no
matter what someone says, you will believe what you
have convinced yourself of. This is America, believe
what you want, your free to do so. But in doing so you
must realize that you are dismissing photographic, video,
and multitudes of eyewitness evidence that tells you that
what you believe is false. Not to mention the common sense
aspect that says that they cant doctor ALL the videos and
pictures of the planes.

99.9 % of the eyewitness' said they saw or heard the plane.

Debate over

i win yes1.gif


No ?

Show me some videos with no planes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Jul 29 2009, 09:16 PM
Post #68





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



[quote name='aerohead' post='10774545' date='Jul 30 2009, 01:39 AM']Quest i just told you who took the picture,
ROB HOWARD. And who said its unproven ?
Has someone proven it to be a doctored photo ?
There is not a video in existance of a NO-Plane
explosion. And if there was one in existance, it
would have hit youtube and the rest of the internet
years ago.
quote]

Aerohead, you are aware that a wing came of the plane and landed in the street during the empire state building crash, true?
Before we continue this debate, I have a few questions for you....

1. Is it possible the Empire State building "crash" was part of a psyops buildup to the NWO plan and future psyops events that might involve false-flag events using planes? If you claim it is a fact it wasn't, please provide proof.

2. Are you aware that Pearl Harbor was in effect a fales-flag operartion?

3. Ditto the Gulf Of Tonkin incident?

4. Same for the USS Liberty massacre?

5. All of these events took place AFTER the Empire State building crash.How do you know we have the complete story on the Empire State building crash?

6. Can you PROVE nothing more than a wing come off (during the Empire State building crash) other than using the military controlled media's word on it?

Aerohead, I am not trying to "win" so much as I am trying to show you your logic is flawed. If you made a better argument, I'd tip my hat. In the meantime, I feel I've made a better argument
and I'm asking the questions a researcher SHOULD ask.

This post has been edited by Quest: Jul 29 2009, 09:36 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aerohead
post Jul 29 2009, 09:36 PM
Post #69





Group: Core Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 13-July 09
From: State of Heightened Awareness
Member No.: 4,476



Where is fancy bread,
in the heart or in the head ?

party.gif


Use some discernment Quest.

Cant burn all your money just because
someone gave you a counterfeit once.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Jul 29 2009, 09:45 PM
Post #70





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



QUOTE (aerohead @ Jul 30 2009, 02:36 AM) *
Where is fancy bread,
in the heart or in the head ?

party.gif


Use some discernment Quest.

Cant burn all your money just because
someone gave you a counterfeit once.


Not sure I follow you, but no offense intended, Aerohead, you've been a gentleman. cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 14th December 2019 - 05:10 PM