The Physics of 911

@maxdancona,

Quote:

The planes are not immaterial at all. They are a key part of the story. If you can't answer about the planes, you have no reasonable narrative.

If the planes are so important to you, why aren't you addressing the issues in the thread, below? Why wouldn't anyone address this for years? Why were all the A2Kers so frightened to talk about such things?

https://able2know.org/topic/218543-1

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

The firemen were part and parcel of the response, and therefore cannot be objective about 9/11.

You are such a laughable joke. Olivier. The firemen's testimony was taken down by a New York city commission because they were there, right in the middle of these explosions, as was William Rodriguez, as were numerous other eyewitnesses, which the 911 Omission Commission purposefully ignored because it was a sop created and controlled by the Bush government.

0 Replies

@camlok,

Quote:

said they become immaterial when viewed against all the other impossible occurrences, which, you must note, you are ignoring.

I am not ignoring anything Camlok. I am accepting everything you say... and I am asking questions with an open mind. For the sake of this argument, I am not disputing the molten metal, and I am not considering the NIST report. I am accepting what you are saying to see if any version of it makes sense.

So does what you believe make any sense? The planes are a big part of that question.

Without hijackers, the planes seem to be an "impossible occurrence", since if there were planes crashing into buildings without hijackers, you need to explain how this would happen.

Of course if there aren't planes, you need to explain how they pulled that off in the middle of a major city during working hours. I understand how TV footage could be faked (I was one of the people watching on TV as the second plane hit). But faking planes flying into buildings in front of thousands of witnesses is a little more difficult.

This is a pretty important problem in your theory.

1 Reply

9/11 Experiment: Egg Drop, Equal Collision disproves Bazant's "Pile Driver" Theory

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6H0hu3tTig

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

I am accepting everything you say... and I am asking questions with an open mind.

If you are operating on the premise that the 911 story is a fake, a fraud, then why aren't you, with your open mind, addressing the questions you are putting solely to me?

"Of course if there aren't planes, you need to explain how they pulled that off "

It is your premise, Max, you offer your theories, bring farmerman the scientist and others "to explain how they pulled that off" to the thread where you raised this issue.

1 Reply

@camlok,

Quote:

If you are operating on the premise that the 911 story is a fake, a fraud, then why aren't you, with your open mind, addressing the questions you are putting solely to me?

You are asserting that the 911 story is a fake. I am operating on the premise that this is true; and then asking the obvious questions to see if this premise makes any sense.

This is your assertion. If you are going to show that it has any logical merit, it is up to you to answer these questions. If you can't answer these simple questions, then there is no reason for anyone to believe that your assertion has any validity.

There seems to be some very large holes in the story you are telling. And these holes are apparent without me even needing to argue your points about Physics.

Whether or not there were planes is a pretty big problem in a core part of the story. If you can't answer this, the rest of what you are saying falls apart.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

There seems to be some very large holes in the story you are telling.

Then point them out.

You are not forgetting, you are purposefully trying to deceive - the holes, the gigantic, volcano size holes are in the US official conspiracy fable.

Why aren't you discussing the information that shows there were no hijackers? Why no videos of any of them on CCTV video monitors? Why have you abandoned your other questions to focus on this one?

Why no discussion by Mr Plane on how these planes and the alleged hijackers that had zero flying skills were able to do maneuvers that planes cannot do at sea level and skilled military aviators can't do.

Just 5 to 6 minute videos below, should give you lots to discuss about the planes hitting the towers, Max.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth: Airplane speed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdbBly5iz0E

Expert Pilots Fail to Hit World Trade Center in 9/11 Simulation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4vScUaPmuA

1 Reply

@camlok,

The problem with videos is that you can't question a video. That is why I am asking you. You are pushing this theory about 9/11. I don't want dancing around or links to propaganda videos. You need to answer the "gigantic, volcano size" holes in the theory you are pushing.

This is on you Camlok.

Now, this is a very simple question that is at the core of the story you are telling.

Did two airplanes strike World Trade Center on the morning of 9/11?

The fact that you are unable or unwilling to answer this simple direct question lies at the core of the problem with your theory.

Or can you answer this simple question?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

The problem with videos is that you can't question a video.

That's another of your wild and crazy ideas meant to distract from the important issues and focus on the inane, Max.

The videos actually address your question. None of these highly skilled line pilots, meaning pilots that actually flew for airlines, some of who actually flew the planes alleged to have been used on 911, could not hit the towers in flight simulations. The INSTRUCTOR was finally able to do so when he slowed to almost landing speed.

So I ask you, in this thread, where you do not make the rules,

Did two airplanes strike World Trade Center on the morning of 9/11?

1 Reply

If you say the planes hit the twin towers, then explain how the ONLY fuel that was on those planes was able to melt steel, vaporize steel, create the by products of thermite/thermate reactions and leave unreacted, meaning not yet exploded particles of NANOthermite in WTC dust.

Ask if there are things you don't understand.

1 Reply

@camlok,

Quote:

So I ask you, in this thread, where you do not make the rules,

Did two airplanes strike World Trade Center on the morning of 9/11?

I have no problem answering simple questions.

Yes, they did.

2 Replies

@camlok,

You are certain that thermite was involved, right? Can I add this to the list?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

And how can you be so sure given the testimony of all the pilots who say it was not possible?

Further, how do you then explain how the ONLY fuel that was on those planes was able to melt steel, vaporize steel, create the by products of thermite/thermate reactions and leave unreacted, meaning not yet exploded particles of NANOthermite in WTC dust.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

You are certain that thermite was involved, right? Can I add this to the list?

Absolutely, and not just thermite, nanothermite.

You can even create question 4, asking about it, if you so desire.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

I started this thread for them to fully explain their theory of what actually happened...

https://able2know.org/topic/375626-1

... they got nothing.

Since you know full well that this thread concerns the physics of 9/11, I won't bother asking you why you think it's appropriate to come into this thread and complain about the lack of participation in another thread you decided to create elsewhere.

Also, your "they got nothing" comment seems to imply that if no one can tell you who was involved, how they did it, and why they did it, then the physics problems brought up in this thread can be dismissed. But you know that's not how it works.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Yes, they did. [Max is saying two planes hit two towers]

If you say the planes hit the twin towers, then explain how the ONLY fuel that was on those planes was able to melt steel, vaporize steel, create the by products of thermite/thermate reactions and leave unreacted, meaning not yet exploded particles of NANOthermite in WTC dust.

Quote:

I have no problem answering simple questions.

Then describe how those impossibilities described above could have occurred.

1 Reply

Nanothermite, a high explosive, the highest grade of explosives in the world available ONLY to US government/US military.

9-11: Military nano thermite unknown to the general public found in the dust

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA-AqM7JNuo

0 Replies

@camlok,

Quote:

If you say the planes hit the twin towers, then explain how the ONLY fuel that was on those planes was able to melt steel, vaporize steel, create the by products of thermite/thermate reactions and leave unreacted, meaning not yet exploded particles of NANOthermite in WTC dust.

The question I was asking was only if two plane hit the twin towers. That says nothing about melting steel, voporized steal or themite reaction.

It is a a simple question. Did two planes hit the World Trade Center?

I have answered this simple question. You still refuse to answer.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

That says nothing about melting steel, voporized steal or themite reaction.

You are tensing up because of fear, Max. Your spelling is going all wacky.

When the planes hit the towers how was the combination of jet fuel and office furnishings able to melt steel, vaporize steel, create the by products of thermite/thermate reactions and leave unreacted, meaning not yet exploded particles of NANOthermite in WTC dust.

How was this fuel source able to melt molybdenum 4,700F, vaporized lead 3,100F?

1 Reply

@camlok,

Quote:

How was this fuel source able to melt molybdenum 4,700F, vaporized lead 3,100F?

Oh, but there was a lot of paper in those buildings, and a lot gypsum. Somehow, with all that dust, these combined to form a furnace of unbelievable proportions, and though unmanned, and under a million tonnes of rubble, those temps were reachable. Right?

1 Reply

The Physics of 911

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know