hot enough Posted June 9, 2017 Author Report Posted June 9, 2017 7 minutes ago, Omni said: It's all about the heat generated. Prove it, with sources. Quote
hot enough Posted June 9, 2017 Author Report Posted June 9, 2017 12 minutes ago, Omni said: So what's left, oh yeah the speed thing. Yeah, another thing that you obviously know nothing about. Quote
Omni Posted June 9, 2017 Report Posted June 9, 2017 1 minute ago, hot enough said: Yeah, another thing that you obviously know nothing about. oh yeah it's something I know a fair bit about. You probably have no idea what a TRSA is but simply it's an area surrounding an airport within which aircraft must reduce speed. It gives the ATC folks a chance to sequence arriving aircraft onto runways. The WTC was constructed within a TRSA, so the engineering required the buildings to be built to withstand impacts by aircraft travelling at no more than 250 KTS. Videos show the aircraft impacted the towers at roughly twice that speed. Not that long ago an engineer that was discussing the WTC collapse claimed that even now they couldn't build a building such as a WTC tower that would withstand such an impact. Quote
Wilber Posted June 9, 2017 Report Posted June 9, 2017 55 minutes ago, hot enough said: Yeah, another thing that you obviously know nothing about. Speed limit in US airspace is 250 kts, below 10,000 ft. Is it clear now? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
hot enough Posted June 10, 2017 Author Report Posted June 10, 2017 5 hours ago, Wilber said: Speed limit in US airspace is 250 kts, below 10,000 ft. Is it clear now? Have you seen the missile, nose, ... yet, Wilber, or are you too cowardly to look? The engine that rocketed out of that "jet" and landed on Murray Street was not from the plane that allegedly struck WTC2. Have you read what the LL Lab scientists said about their new generation of super explosives, the new nanothermites? Quote
hot enough Posted June 10, 2017 Author Report Posted June 10, 2017 6 hours ago, Omni said: Not that long ago an engineer that was discussing the WTC collapse claimed that even now they couldn't build a building such as a WTC tower that would withstand such an impact. They designed the twin towers for that, but not for nanothermite explosives. How did the 220 acres of concrete become micron sized particles? Quote
Omni Posted June 10, 2017 Report Posted June 10, 2017 1 minute ago, hot enough said: They designed the twin towers for that, but not for nanothermite explosives. How did the 220 acres of concrete become micron sized particles? They didn't design the towers for airliners hitting them at 500 knots. There's the deal. Quote
hot enough Posted June 10, 2017 Author Report Posted June 10, 2017 19 minutes ago, Omni said: They didn't design the towers for airliners hitting them at 500 knots. There's the deal. How come you never provide sources or address proof/evidence place right in front of you? Quote
Omni Posted June 10, 2017 Report Posted June 10, 2017 Just now, hot enough said: How come you never provide sources or address proof/evidence place right in front of you? Because I'm already quite confident of what caused the collapse of the WTC. And I've actually been to the site. Quote
hot enough Posted June 10, 2017 Author Report Posted June 10, 2017 That is unscientific. You're wrong about the design of the towers and you are wrong about everything you haven't addressed because not addressing the science means you are frightened to do so or you know you lack the competence to do so. Quote
Omni Posted June 10, 2017 Report Posted June 10, 2017 10 minutes ago, hot enough said: That is unscientific. You're wrong about the design of the towers and you are wrong about everything you haven't addressed because not addressing the science means you are frightened to do so or you know you lack the competence to do so. Sorry my son. all your "science" has already gone down the drain. Go build yourself a campfire and throw a beer can in. Or a pop can if you don't drink alcohol. As long as the can is aluminum. Quote
hot enough Posted June 10, 2017 Author Report Posted June 10, 2017 7 minutes ago, Omni said: Sorry See, science deniers can't provide any evidence for the US conspiracy theory nor can they address all the science that shows the nutty US conspiracy theory is pure bunko. The twin towers were designed to take the impact of a 707 travelling at 600 miles per hour. You folks don't want to try to provide evidence/proof for the US conspiracy theory because you know it will illustrate that you know little to nothing about the whole affair. You just got dabs of propaganda here and there. Quote
Omni Posted June 10, 2017 Report Posted June 10, 2017 1 minute ago, hot enough said: The twin towers were designed to take the impact of a 707 travelling at 600 miles per hour. No they were not. Already explained to you why. Quote
hot enough Posted June 10, 2017 Author Report Posted June 10, 2017 7 minutes ago, Omni said: No they were not. Already explained to you why. No, you explained nothing. You asserted a lie without any evidence. Quote
hot enough Posted June 10, 2017 Author Report Posted June 10, 2017 (edited) That is how science deniers/anti-truthers work. They hear some propaganda on some "news" channel and think they know something about 911. Or they watch the "Let's Roll" propaganda movies and discuss the "science" and the "evidence" with their friends. Then they absolutely refuse to look at science right in front of their eyes. Edited June 10, 2017 by hot enough Quote
Omni Posted June 10, 2017 Report Posted June 10, 2017 2 minutes ago, hot enough said: No, you explained nothing. You asserted a lie without any evidence. Sorry pal, but I already know what happened at the WTC on 9-11. Most of us do and have moved on. You wish to continue flailing around trying to come up with some sort of weird story or stories that have been debunked. But hey I understand you have your little club there, and you're allowed. so carry on. And let us know what little conspiracy theories you come up with next. Quote
hot enough Posted June 10, 2017 Author Report Posted June 10, 2017 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Omni said: Sorry pal, but I already know what happened at the WTC on 9-11. And when science deniers find themselves up a stump, this is the favored tactic, which essentially says, I'm too frightened to continue as it will show I know nothing about this topic. You've been doing that all along, Omni. Never offering anything but your silly campfire science. Anti-truthers! Edited June 10, 2017 by hot enough Quote
Omni Posted June 10, 2017 Report Posted June 10, 2017 Just now, hot enough said: And when science deniers find themselves up a stump, this is the favored tactic, which essentially says, I'm too frightened to continue as it will show I know nothing about this topic. You've been doing that all along, Omni. Never offering anything but your silly campfire science. Anti-truthers! Right then, carry on. I'll hold your coat. Quote
hot enough Posted June 10, 2017 Author Report Posted June 10, 2017 6 minutes ago, Omni said: Right then, carry on. I'll hold your coat. You are a joke. You can't even defend your BS about the plane speed. Quote
Omni Posted June 10, 2017 Report Posted June 10, 2017 2 minutes ago, hot enough said: You are a joke. You can't even defend your BS about the plane speed. Go check the videos. Quote
hot enough Posted June 10, 2017 Author Report Posted June 10, 2017 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Omni said: Go check the videos. The speed the towers were designed for. Edited June 10, 2017 by hot enough Quote
Omni Posted June 10, 2017 Report Posted June 10, 2017 1 minute ago, hot enough said: The speed the towers were designed for. 250 kts or less Quote
hot enough Posted June 10, 2017 Author Report Posted June 10, 2017 10 hours ago, Omni said: 250 kts or less You are going to have to provide a source for your contention. You can look up the meaning of source in a dictionary. Quote
Wilber Posted June 10, 2017 Report Posted June 10, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, hot enough said: You are going to have to provide a source for your contention. You can look up the meaning of source in a dictionary. Speed limit in controlled airspace below 10,000 ft is 250 kts. Look it up for yourself. Why would anyone design a building that would withstand a 707 hitting it at 600 mph? I'm not even sure a 707 could do 600 mph at sea level so you will have to provide a source for your contention my son, because the only thing that is obvious is your ignorance of aircraft and how they are operated. Edited June 10, 2017 by Wilber 1 Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
hot enough Posted June 10, 2017 Author Report Posted June 10, 2017 7 minutes ago, Wilber said: Speed limit in controlled airspace below 10,000 ft is 250 kits. Look it up for yourself. Why would anyone design a building that would withstand a 707 hitting it at 600 mph. I'm not even sure a 707 could do 600 mph at sea level so you will have to provide a source for your contention my son, because the only thing that is obvious is your ignorance of aircraft and how they are operated. No, you and Omni will have to provide YOUR source for YOUR contention. You guys never provide any sources. I just want to see if you two understand what source/evidence/proof mean. The nanothermite alone, sinks the US government conspiracy theory. Why do you persist in your denial of reality? It illustrates delusion on an grand scale. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.