# Physical Science Question

Discussion in '9/11' started by Katzenjammer, May 24, 2016.

1. ### KatzenjammerNew Member

Joined:
May 24, 2016
Messages:
293
1
Trophy Points:
0

This is the ONLY post in the whole tread, that actually addresses what the OP is about.
note that the deceleration from 240 m/s to 235.29 m/s would happen in aprox 5 milliseconds, therefore >100 g deceleration,
if this is not proof that "FLT175" was bogus, then what does it take to show people the fact that the MSM lied about the whole scene?

2. ### KatzenjammerNew Member

Joined:
May 24, 2016
Messages:
293
1
Trophy Points:
0
So really now, nobody wants to discuss the fact that airliners were not used as weapons. (?)

3. ### rahlWell-Known Member

Joined:
May 31, 2010
Messages:
61,589
7,271
Trophy Points:
113
whats there to discuss? usually, you are correct. Airliners are not typically used as weapons. On 9/11 they were.

4. ### KatzenjammerNew Member

Joined:
May 24, 2016
Messages:
293
1
Trophy Points:
0
What PROOF, is there that airliners were actually used as weapons? .... Where is the physical evidence?

5. ### Blues63New MemberPast Donor

Joined:
Dec 18, 2014
Messages:
1,096
2
Trophy Points:
0
The evidence for the planes has been supplied already and you ignored it. You now have the burden of proof (I know 9/11 truth don't understand that, but it's true).

6. ### KatzenjammerNew Member

Joined:
May 24, 2016
Messages:
293
1
Trophy Points:
0
RE: "burden of proof" the MSM was the first to assert that hijacked airliners were used as weapons
therefore, since sufficient proof has never been supplied, the burden of proof still rests with the MSM.

7. ### Blues63New MemberPast Donor

Joined:
Dec 18, 2014
Messages:
1,096
2
Trophy Points:
0
Of course it does. What rubbish. 9/11 truth will twist anything in order to avoid proving their case. That is how the donations keep flooding in.

If you can't support your case then there is no need to discuss it with you. Thanks for clearing that up.

8. ### KatzenjammerNew Member

Joined:
May 24, 2016
Messages:
293
1
Trophy Points:
0
I'm not asking anybody for anything except for them to THINK!
The major feature of this false flag is the fact that snap shots of bits of metal alleged to be airliner wreckage,
but in the absence of any documentation that proves said bits were actually part of "FLT11", "FLT175", "FLT77" or "FLT93"
what do we have

9. ### Blues63New MemberPast Donor

Joined:
Dec 18, 2014
Messages:
1,096
2
Trophy Points:
0
"Think"? Why don't you try it instead of ignoring the evidence? Just sticking your fingers in your ears and bleating "la, la, la". The evidence exists, and if you choose not to believe based on a lack of evidence, then be my jest.

I don't understand how a supposed 'thinker' can accept no-planes-that's a paradox in itself.

10. ### KatzenjammerNew Member

Joined:
May 24, 2016
Messages:
293
1
Trophy Points:
0
Some people have a very low threshold as to what they consider convincing evidence for hijacked airliners having been used as weapons.

11. ### Blues63New MemberPast Donor

Joined:
Dec 18, 2014
Messages:
1,096
2
Trophy Points:
0
And some people believe bat-sh*t crazy ideas like no planes. Your point?

12. ### KatzenjammerNew Member

Joined:
May 24, 2016
Messages:
293
1
Trophy Points:
0
as long as you maintain that bias, you will never get anywhere, the fact is that you are blatantly biased against 9/11 truth!
no different from despising a man because of the color of his skin.

13. ### Blues63New MemberPast Donor

Joined:
Dec 18, 2014
Messages:
1,096
2
Trophy Points:
0
Well, that was a stupid response with a massive red fish. I'll maintain reality and you can have your no-planes lunacy.

Bias has nothing to do with it. You are deliberately ignoring the evidence in order to push an insane story of no foundation in truth or reality.

You are the one maintaining heavy bias by pushing an irrational story with no supporting evidence. That is logically specious and devoid of reason. You are a waste of time because you are unable to present a logical, coherent and well constructed case.

14. ### KatzenjammerNew Member

Joined:
May 24, 2016
Messages:
293
1
Trophy Points:
0
does anyone except the few regulars on this form, actually read anything that is posted here?
really?

15. ### rahlWell-Known Member

Joined:
May 31, 2010
Messages:
61,589
7,271
Trophy Points:
113
we all saw them hit the buildings.

collected from the crash site, video evidence and eye witness testimony.

- - - Updated - - -

yea, actually watching 2 airliners smash into a building is a pretty low threshold. lol

16. ### EleutheraWell-Known MemberDonor

Joined:
Jun 13, 2015
Messages:
14,017
6,324
Trophy Points:
113
Are you aware that in the nose of aluminum airliners is a steel nosewheel assembly?

Are you aware that in the fuselage and wings are fairly massive steel main gear assemblies and engines made of non-aluminum metals?

I'm sure you're aware that the face of the towers were not solid, but contained windows several feet tall and about 2 feet wide, making the walls rather like a paper shredder? In this case an aluminum shredder, penetrated by the various steel parts of the airplane?

17. ### Hoosier8Well-Known MemberPast Donor

Joined:
Jan 16, 2012
Messages:
97,282
27,224
Trophy Points:
113
Also at that speed. The fuel in the wings acts like a solid battering ram.

Joined:
Jan 1, 2015
Messages:
1,705