Chinese "Demolition" Proves 9-11 was an Inside Job
in [Physics]
|
Prev: FR Bending of Light = GR 1919 Eddington Experiment
Next: Solutions manual to Intermediate Accounting 13e Kieso
From: Iarnrod on 11 Jan 2010 10:32 On Jan 10, 11:16 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Iarnrod" <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:36bb4a44-f4cf-445b-8aea-836eba6f6da8(a)e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 10, 10:16 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> > wrote: > > > > > "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message > > >news:4b4a6758$0$3075$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au...> Funny thing about > > you 9/11 cranks. > > > > You always complain that the official story must be wrong, but you > > > provide > > > no alternative explanation. > > > > Do you have a better explanation of 9/11 than the official one? If so, > > > lets hear it. > > > The pilot wasn't wearing his tinfoil helmet and US technology is so > > good the President was able to use mind control, beamed from a > > satellite. The buildings were built with bombs in them, timed to go > > off when the planes hit. > > The problem with your theory is you used "president" and "mind." Those > two could never be used in the same sentence when talking about Bush. > > _________________________________ > Whereas your theory is as follows: Bush was out of his mind. He could not use "mind control" to beam a satellite command to blow up the buildings. Do you think that he could have done that?
From: Androcles on 11 Jan 2010 11:09 "Iarnrod" <iarnrod(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:9a04be9a-79a0-4691-bf2e-17a2ced25860(a)c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... That's a physical impossibility. Sorry. Boeing jetliners are not capable of remote control. =========================================== Ahem... they most certainly are. NASA had a plane in 1985 that was used as a test vehicle for that very purpose. The development of the drone was carried out with extensive testing of a plane flown by remote control, with a pilot who could override it if anything when wrong, and the cabin was loaded with all manner of test equipment operated by engineers. That plane was a converted passenger liner, a B737. Not that that had anything to do with 9/11, but your statement is very incorrect.
From: PV on 11 Jan 2010 17:47 Robert Higgins <robert_higgins_61(a)hotmail.com> writes: >Why would a BOTCHED demolition look like WTC? BTW, the Chinese >building was 22 stories tall - not anywhere close to the size of the >WTC. Each of the airplane strikes was higher than the ENTIRE height of >the CHinese building, so your example is not very applicable. We've told chewie before that no controlled demolition has ever been attempted on buildings even close to this tall (the record is under 500 feet), but it doesn't matter, he's write-only. * -- * PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something like corkscrews.
From: Peter Webb on 12 Jan 2010 00:30 "Iarnrod" <iarnrod(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:027e6260-320c-4fd9-aafa-57f41e6534bb(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... On Jan 10, 11:16 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Iarnrod" <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:36bb4a44-f4cf-445b-8aea-836eba6f6da8(a)e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 10, 10:16 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> > wrote: > > > > > "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message > > >news:4b4a6758$0$3075$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au...> Funny thing about > > you 9/11 cranks. > > > > You always complain that the official story must be wrong, but you > > > provide > > > no alternative explanation. > > > > Do you have a better explanation of 9/11 than the official one? If so, > > > lets hear it. > > > The pilot wasn't wearing his tinfoil helmet and US technology is so > > good the President was able to use mind control, beamed from a > > satellite. The buildings were built with bombs in them, timed to go > > off when the planes hit. > > The problem with your theory is you used "president" and "mind." Those > two could never be used in the same sentence when talking about Bush. > > _________________________________ > Whereas your theory is as follows: Bush was out of his mind. He could not use "mind control" to beam a satellite command to blow up the buildings. Do you think that he could have done that? _________________________ No. I am simply trying to find the most plausible explanation of the events of 9/11. You implied that you have a more plausible theory than the official one. If so, I would like to hear it. What is it?
From: knews4u2chew on 12 Jan 2010 11:25
On Jan 11, 2:47 pm, pv+use...(a)pobox.com (PV) wrote: > Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> writes: > >Why would a BOTCHED demolition look like WTC? BTW, the Chinese > >building was 22 stories tall - not anywhere close to the size of the > >WTC. Each of the airplane strikes was higher than the ENTIRE height of > >the CHinese building, so your example is not very applicable. > > We've told chewie before that no controlled demolition has ever been > attempted on buildings even close to this tall (the record is under 500 > feet), but it doesn't matter, he's write-only. * > -- > * PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something > like corkscrews. Oh? Since something has "never been done before" it can't happen. That's rich. |