Why The Towers Fell

[quandary121]

Flightpath Relative to Objects

The flightpath based on downed lampposts takes plane over the corner of a construction yard.
The jet had to clear the lawn and avoid the following obstacles:

• Spools lying directly under the right engine's path
• Fence extending to edge of construction yard
• Generator at corner of construction yard, also directly under right engine's path

Jet was on a very shallow approach angle, losing about 1 foot for every 20 feet.
It could not maneuver around objects given 400+ MPH speed.

 

[CDNBear]

anthropomorphism to give human characteristics to certain things such as animals and objects

Did that give you a headache?

shes in bed pal

Oh...so she's busy at work...

whats up you confused now that Ive spiked your crap statement about a plain hitting the pentagon

Not at all. I've proven with video examples that the explosion at the Pentagon was fuel based, not munitions based. So how about you try and prove that wrong instead of this "nyah, nayh, nyah, nyah, nyah, no you didn't" 5 year old crap.

Should I post the comparison vid's again? In case you missed them the first time.

 

[quandary121]

[SIZE=+1]Comments by 9-11 Research added on 9/16/04[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]

It is certainly true that no jetliner could have maneuvered around obstacles within 100 feet of the building, given an approach speed of 400 mph. However there was damage to the fence and generator that is arguably consistent with the profile of a 757 given its apparent flightpath. The generator, which was in the path of the starboard engine, was gouged and a portion of the fence was knocked down.
Some have argued that the damage to the generator -- the dark object in the right in the photo -- was not in the correct orientation to have been produced by the engine. However, we do not know if the generator was moved before the photo was taken, nor whether it was hit by some other part of the plane, such as one of the wing flap 'canoes'.
[/SIZE]

 

[quandary121]

These photographs, which appear to show fragments from an aircraft inside the Pentagon, were published by Sarah Roberts in the article Photos Of Flt 77 Wreckage Inside The Pentagon. Like all of the physical evidence of the Pentagon attack, these do little to resolve the question of exactly what crashed into the Pentagon. ( source )
These two photographs show the C-Ring punch-out hole, and several apparent pieces of aircraft debris outside the hole.
This photograph shows the remains of what is apparently a portion of the high pressure-compressor and shaft from a axialflow turbojet engine.
This photograph shows apparent aircraft debris: including pieces of aluminum joined together with rivets.
These two photographs show debris with decoration consistent with an American Airlines jetliner.
This photograph shows an apparent piece of aircraft debris with primer paint typical of the interior surfaces of aircraft.

 

[CDNBear]

WHAT..???? thats not even english

A berm is a level space, shelf, or raised barrier separating two areas. Berm is a loanword from Dutch.[1]


And because I do not copy and paste others work without giving credit, which is theft and what you do, here's the link...

Link

You should feel real stupid about now, but I know you don't. The truly dumb never do.

 

[quandary121]

Did that give you a headache?
Oh...so she's busy at work...



Not at all. I've proven with video examples that the explosion at the Pentagon was fuel based, not munitions based. So how about you try and prove that wrong instead of this "nyah, nayh, nyah, nyah, nyah, no you didn't" 5 year old crap.

Should I post the comparison vid's again? In case you missed them the first time.

Oh...so she's busy at work...

i think your confusing my mum with yours here pal

Not at all. I've proven with video examples that the explosion at the Pentagon was fuel based

that's why a chair with a book on top is unscathed by fire is it

Did that give you a headache?

Not at all ,why do you see the need to post your crap smileys every where ,when you know you cant come up with the answers to the proofs given by the photographic evidence, and you call me childish your straight out of kinder-garden m8 there not even funny just plain stupid like you are .

 

[quandary121]

A berm is a level space, shelf, or raised barrier separating two areas. Berm is a loanword from Dutch.[1]


And because I do not copy and paste others work without giving credit, which is theft and what you do, here's the link...

Link

You should feel real stupid about now, but I know you don't. The truly dumb never do.

like i said it aint english is it ,so excuse my not having heard of it

And because I do not copy and paste others work without giving credit, which is theft

big deal so sue me

 

[CDNBear]

i think your confusing my mum with yours here pal

My Mom's a bitch, but I doubt it.

that's why a chair with a book on top is unscathed by fire is it

Actually ya. That would indicate an intense quick moving fire, not a munitions explosion. Are you following along here?

This is all verifiable. Try talking to your local Fire Dept. I'm sue they'll answer all the questions asked by the cute little retarded kid.

Not at all ,why do you see the need to post your crap smileys every where ,when you know you cant come up with the answers to the proofs given by the photographic evidence, and you call me childish your straight out of kinder-garden m8 there not even funny just plain stupid like you are .

OK, sure, you're right, now show me a high explosives munitions explosion, from a missile. That resembles the explosion at the Pentagon smart guy.

 

[quandary121]

• High-speed crashes tend to shred aircraft into small pieces.
• Most early photographs of the Pentagon crash site hide regions of the ground adjacent to the Pentagon.
• The extensive breaches in the Pentagons facade would have admitted most of of 757's airframe.

http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/nodebris.html

Ive given the link just so you can go there to say in your time honored fashion that the people who wrote it are looney's or have no credibility

yawn yawn

 

[Outta here]

We do not want to put a thread that has 67 pages worth of contributions into the Cage.
Please. Try to retain some civility in your discussions.

 

[CDNBear]

like i said it aint english is it ,so excuse my not having heard of it

You see, this is what examples your stupidity. You don't even know what a 'loanword' is. It's a word in common usage that comes from the Dutch. It is true that it is originally a Dutch word. But the 'loanword' indicates it is a word in common English usage. You'ld know that if you weren't in grade school.

big deal so sue me

You are 5.

 

[Outta here]

We do not want to put a thread that has 67 pages worth of contributions into the Cage.
Please. Try to retain some civility in your discussions.

You see, this is what examples your stupidity. You don't even know what a 'loanword' is. It's a word in common usage that comes from the Dutch. It is true that it is originally a Dutch word. But the 'loanword' indicates it is a word in common English usage. You'ld know that if you weren't in grade school.
You are 5.

I did say please.

 

[CDNBear]

We do not want to put a thread that has 67 pages worth of contributions into the Cage.
Please. Try to retain some civility in your discussions.

You can only retain so much civility when dealing with someone of such limited intelligence Zan. Hence my difficulty with quandary.

I did say please.

You posted that while I was post that...lol...

 

[quandary121]

My Mom's a bitch, but I doubt it.

Actually ya. That would indicate an intense quick moving fire, not a munitions explosion. Are you following along here?

This is all verifiable. Try talking to your local Fire Dept. I'm sue they'll answer all the questions asked by the cute little retarded kid.

OK, sure, you're right, now show me a high explosives munitions explosion, from a missile. That resembles the explosion at the Pentagon smart guy.

OK, sure, you're right, now show me a high explosives munitions explosion, from a missile. That resembles the explosion at the Pentagon smart guy

Where have i ever said it was a missile ive said it was more than likely one of these

Actually ya. That would indicate an intense quick moving fire, not a munitions explosion. Are you following along here?

err yes but your stories about a 757 dont add up, one minute they can bring down the WTC because of the jet fuel , the next its intense quick moving fire that cant burn a book .....???????

 

[Outta here]

You can only retain so much civility when dealing with someone of such limited intelligence Zan. Hence my difficulty with quandary.

Repeat after me:

"This is where we shall have to agree to disagree. Have yourself a great day now."

You may quote me if you like. ;-)

 

[quandary121]

Assholologist is right

 

[CDNBear]

Where have i ever said it was a missile ive said it was more than likely one of these

And what was it packed with? Cotton candy?
Missile, Global Hawk, whatever. High explosives do not blow like the explosion at the Pentagon. I still challenge you to show me they do, since it's your assertion. I've already shown how they compare. You've done nothing but state the same thing over and over. Not they don't, blah blah blah...

err yes but your stories about a 757 dont add up, one minute they can bring down the WTC because of the jet fuel , the next its intense quick moving fire that cant burn a book .....???????

There was a lot of debris (Yes that's an English word too), at the WTC that wasn't burned. I think you're missing the basic science understanding here. No surprise there.

 

[quandary121]

Repeat after me:

"This is where we shall have to agree to disagree. Have yourself a great day now."

You may quote me if you like. ;-)

This is where we shall have to agree to disagree

i concur

 

[CDNBear]

Assholologist is right

Yes I am...do you even know what one is? Or the website that spawned it?

I think not...:roll:

 

[quandary121]

And what was it packed with? Cotton candy?
Missile, Global Hawk, whatever. High explosives do not blow like the explosion at the Pentagon. I still challenge you to show me they do, since it's your assertion. I've already shown how they compare. You've done nothing but state the same thing over and over. Not they don't, blah blah blah...
There was a lot of debris (Yes that's an English word too), at the WTC that wasn't burned. I think you're missing the basic science understanding here. No surprise there.

good night buffoon, your too tiresome to even continue to explain anything to like Ive said before its like trying to educate pork