Re: Plane truth

From	moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Newsgroups	alt.conspiracy, sci.physics
Subject	Re: Plane truth
Date	2015-09-20 19:52 +0000
Organization	The World : www.TheWorld.com : Since 1989
Message-ID	<mtn2q4$o2q$1@pcls7.std.com> (permalink)
References	(12 earlier) <cqidnUHyuccnmWrInZ2dnUU7-cednZ2d@giganews.com> <mtka0e$hr$1@pcls7.std.com> <9JudncFB6NxEmmPInZ2dnUU7-eGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <mtlfoc$pd$1@pcls7.std.com> <jP6dnYJUMtPmS2PInZ2dnUU7-cGdnZ2d@giganews.com>

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:

>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
>news:mtlfoc$pd$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>>Again, the lack of airplane parts around the Pentagon or Pranksville, PA
>>
>> WHAT lack of airplane parts, lying kook?  They recovered 95% of each of
>> the two planes!!

>riiight.  Maybe they recovered 95% of the airplane that crashed but they 
>never let us know it was really a scale model that crashed.

There you go again, making up crap again.

>Besides where is your supporting link?

K00ktard, you never give supporting links for your "lack of airplane parts"
claim or your "scale model" claim.  And don't respond with the URL of a
4 hour kookvid.  That's not support, that's just the uneducated claim of
another kooktard.  That is, assuming it's not a pack of lies, I just got
through proving that kookvids contain tampered videos.

But here's a bone for you anyway.  
http://old.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010925scene0925p2.asp

>> It did end up in the basement, raving kook, as your photo shows.

>riiight.  There was nothing in the basements as other videos proved and how 
>you could deduce what ended up in the basement from an above ground photo? 

Your photo shows the top of the debris field about level with street which
is just about exactly right considering the volume of debris the towers
would generate.

Where else would the debris be?  Why would it not crash through into the
bathtub?  After all, 1.5 million tons (108,222 truckloads!) was removed
from the site, so we know it was there.

And of course, you have *never* produced a photo of untouched bottom 
levels of either tower, free of debris.  No, not a part of the concourse
500 feet away, the lower levels of the towers.

>> There was nothing magical about the ground lobby floor that would have
>> withstood 110 floors of building collapsing onto it.  The collapse
>> continued, stopping only when it reached bedrock 70' below.  As your
>> photo shows, the debris filled the basement below the towers up to street
>> level.

>And yet it couldn't crush the Survivors or the outside walls that were left 
>standing strong.  BTW I don't follow the version of physics that only 
>happened on 9/11.

Sometimes dumb luck just happens.  It just so happened the major mass of
the towers didn't crush the stairway.  Note that there was no similar
"Stairwell B" in the South Tower.

Not to mention, of course, a nuke would have vaporized Stairwell B and all
within it.

>> Of course much of the concourse level away from the towers' bases remained
>> standing.

>But those wall were directly under the exoskeleton of the Twin Towers.  Not 
>only does your bullshit fail to hold water but if there was any truth to it 
>then why didn't NIST address the issue?

>Heck, NIST wasn't even allowed to address what remained of the Twin Towers 
>because they are not consistent with a collapse.

You're just babbling.  And again, you never provided proof nothing fell
into the basement levels of the towers.

>>>Or why there was so much M291 resin spread on the areas the haze was 
>>>coming
>>>from in the above photo.
>>
>> You don't even know what "M291 resin" is.  It's for the military for
>> neutralizing and removing chemical warfare agents quickly and effectively
>> from the skin, not for removing radioactivity from World Trade Centers!

>Who said it was to remove any radioactivity?  It was used to cover the areas 
>where the nukes were detonated to keep the radioactivity from spreading too 
>fast.

Your second sentence contradicts your first.  You're babbling again.

Thread

csiph-web