If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
The B-25 is a different sized plane with a different amount (and type of fuel), plus it would have been flying at a lower speed, different angle of descent etc, etc.
Which isn't to say you're wrong, but the proof you're right isn't as strong as you claim.
Obviously you are so rooted in simply denying it all that you refuse to even acknowldge the detailed explanation of implausibilities set forth in the testimonies posted by MR. Feel free to deny all logic and, as well, the huge distinctions between WWII aircraft operation and modern, complex failsafe-imbued commerical jet aircraft.
The logical and physical implausibilities of the laughable "official" conspiracy theory have been pointed out and linked to repeatedly for any who have a real interest to examine the known facts of the day.
Yep - a B-25 bomber weighs around ten tonnes. By contrast, a 767 like the ones that hit the WTC can carry nearly 80 tonnes just in fuel, and they were fully fueled for a flight across the continent.
That is what the effort of the 911Truth movement has ever been about and precisely what the purposely limited farce of the 911 Commission hearings sought to avoid at all costs.
[edited to add: btw NQA, the following link details more of the 1945 crash. Youll note the facts that:
1. The bomber was actually climbing to the avoid the Empire State and thus would have had to be accelerating;
2. The impact was considerable despite wieght/fuel disparities between the bomber and modern commercial aircraft. The damage to the structure and the subsequent fires did not weaken that structure then just as much as the WTC impacts could not have brought down the buildings in the visible demolition style that they fell on 911.
Those buildings were intended to fall come hell or high water and the logical explanation is not found in any report by FEMA or NIST nor in the mere repeated claims of the administration pundits.]
http://history1900s.about.com/library/misc/blempirecrash.htm
How many times these facts must be repeated - to get through to the authority worshipping naysayers - boggles the rational mind. :chin:
If I was to put a bet on somebody being able to hit a skyscraper with a plane, my money would be on the guy who had been to pilot school, rather than the guy piloting a fantastical remote-controlled dummy 767 from the ground.
There's little point arguing with people like Clandestine. Everything is part of the conspiracy, even facts that dispute the conspiracy. Its like a form of mental illness.
Back to "global collapses" again. You sound like somebody who is repeating for the hundredth something they've read elsewhere. You're really not coming across as somebody who knows what they're talking about or who has done any original thinking of their own.
You can even repeat this experiment at home using a plastic spoon. Heat it up and you'll find it becomes weak and pliable way before the heat that it actually begins to melt at. I'm not a scientist, but I do know the same happens with metal
This coming from blagsta who repeatedly runs to pictures of lizards as his idea of "facts" which dispute anything.
Best stop looking in the mirror when referring to mental illness dear boy, youre projecting again.
But that's kind of what bothers me. If you have 4 spoons holding up each corner of a flat surface and light a fire under one of the spoons, you do not get an even collapse, you get a lopsided falling over.
To any who choose to apply consistency of reason, an ounce of intellectual honesty, and the legwork many like myself have undertaken since 2001 to research the laughable implausibilities (dare say impossibilities) of the official conspiracy theory, the arguments stand on their own.
The naysayers will continue to deny any evidence and consider themselves justified in their cognitively compartmentalized minds. Quite a sad condition to behold really.
a collapse that can only happen with explosives ...it's all quite easy to check figures etc with other sources.
if i cannot read the government line ...then read it from the angle of scientists engineers pilots etc and come to some kind of conclusion i would suggest you all stop reading and researching anything and everything ...also stop discussing politics.
i give up.
this administration has been proven to be lying cheating and mnipulating on a very serious scale from day one ...many people argued in here ...guess who has been proved right every step of the way regarding the truth?from election fraud to wmd's and invasions ...
I bet even 'ol Mama Bush herself recognises the current American administration to be a lying, cheating, manipulating bunch of bastards - but it's a mighty big step from there to remote-controlled 767s.
very easily done.
seeing as many exercises were going on with the military using commercial jet liners as weapons ...it would be very easy.
It is all quite plausible and quite consistent with the known facts of those you would dearly love to believe were pilotting the fateful aircrafts.
occams razor
how am oi making unesessary assumptions?
Occam's Razor
Thats not what you're doing though is it? You've made up your mind then only taken into account the evidence that fits.
Hardly, dear boy. Merely one with sufficient years in political circles to smell a criminal enterprise and to recognise the consistent orchestration of events called for by the real zealots now fully in control of all three branches of my nation's government.
Again, your energies would be better served focussing on the major figures behind the PNAC, most now serving in this administration or advising it, than playing blagsta and running from logical and evidentiary consistency whenever it might call you to rethink your most basic assumptions about the "brand America" myths to which you apparently subscribe.
As for remote aerospace command and control technology, again youll find that such technology is well in use in other military aircraft. Given the plausible switch of planes for drones used in the multiple concurrent aerial drills, the necessity for aircraft of a rough scale to a 757 only need be substituted. Conflicting testimony on the day itself had quite a few saying the aircraft they saw slam into the buildings were not passenger craft at all.
Bait and switch.