An airliner with a MTOW of 255000lbs flying as fast as possible can't possibly do any damage:rolleyes:
even though a Cherokee can destroy a seven story steel building and a Cirrus can wipe out a whole floor of apartments:cool:Google Images Google Images
I have more patience with Ssg than I have with these 9-11 clowns at least I find Ssg amusing...these stupid theories are insulting to the relatives of those who died and absolutely ridiculous to propose nano-thermite/controlled demolitions/missiles what complete :mad:


:*

They don't say there was no damage. They say the damage was done using explosives to create an illusion of plane impact. Two planes had already been flown into buildings, so why not a third? It makes no sense.

Why these people want to create a myth is a mystery.

I guess I'm mixing it up with what these idiots are saying about the WTC attacks
i.e that a plane hit-as it is undeniable- but that the damage done was a subsequent controlled demolition-my point is that these freaks should just be ignored:)

Funny you should bring this up, PA.

"gravity32" did you say the following?See more here and here with respect to this discussion and "gravity32".



.

A320Slave,

You are clutching at straws. Can you prove the plane did not hit the Pentagon?

I don't think so.

Can you prove that the WTC did not collapse by gravity, fires and structural damage?

Your argument is a logical fallacy.. It is known as an Argument from Ignorance.

What is harder, planting enough high explosives and thermite in 3 WTC buildings? Or manipulating data?

Why do you trust the data provided by government agencies with regard to the Pentagon, yet feel the WTC was destroyed by controlled demolition?

Again, your double standard is astounding.

I trust the witnesses to impact, and the witnesses to the plane having only a slight bank, making the north path impossible. You must be joking, right? Do you get a kick out of this?

The radar and the FDR happen to agree with the witnesses, but, as you say, somebody might have fiddled with the records. Lucky we have so many witnesses to support the data, and not one witness to a flyover!

Don't you ever get tired of going in circles "gravity32"?

Click, read, study.

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/44612...ml#post6715949

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/44612...ml#post6715999

I enjoy this diagram as well. It reflects the data point you are so willing to support, yet fail to get the support of any real and verified pilot.

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f1...-G_Diagram.jpg

Apparently "gravity32", you are the only one getting a "kick out of this" as you continue to dig your hole deeper and deeper losing support along the way, while Pilots For 9/11 Truth continue to grow.

A graph with no numbers on the x axis does not do much.

Have you forgotten this image of an honest witness?

http://www.pprune.org/%5BIMG%5Dhttp:....jpg%5B/IMG%5Dhttp://i1210.photobucket.com/albums/...flatonroof.jpg

No bank over the Annex! Therefore the sharply curved north path is impossible - that idea has to be abandoned.

There is an abundance of witnesses to impact via a straight path so any logical person would accept that the plane did hit. Therefore we can conclude that the plane had enough safety margin to survive the very brief period after it went over its rated speed. Do you honestly believe the plane couldn't accelerate past its rated speed for 15 seconds without breaking up? It is called fatigue failure - it takes time.

Numbers are on the x-axis. You just cannot determine those numbers because you don't understand V-speeds nor do you have any aeronautical knowledge.


Now look in the lower left hand corner of this graphic.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a3...fs/ancgif2.gif

Round and round we go "gravity32".

Again, instead of just arguing in circles, I will just agree to disagree. It's pointless to argue with you, especially considering the fact you have no training whatsoever in aviation nor any support from a verified pilot. This is like arguing with a 15 year old on how to drive a car.

Let us know when you will get one verified pilot to support your claims. So far, you fail.

Matter of fact, pilots such as PA above think people like you are a "freak". Good luck!

By the way "gravity32", since you have considered and suggest highly classified military grade super duper nano-thermate planted in the publicly occupied WTC, have you considered the same standard for classified aircraft technology? Such as Vectored Thrust? What does that do to your calculations? Don't bother to answer as we already know you prefer the double standard.

Does Stafford's bank angle look like 85 degrees? The plane can't make the turn without it. And it can't make the turn with it either, as it produces a load of 12g.

To get round the curve at Stafford's angle of about 30 degrees would require slowing the plane to about 100 knots. That won't fly either.

If you can't see that Stafford and Prather, with their very clear indication of the plane flying wings level till past the Annex, totally destroys your theory, then there is certainly no hope for this discussion. There are many other witnesses but none thought the bank sufficient to be worthy of particular comment. Perhaps it was only 6 degrees as in the FDR file. Many witnesses mentioned the plane spooling up, full throttle. Perhaps it was really going fast and accelerating as in the FDR file and as shown by radar.

As you are determined to go against so much evidence-based science it is clear that we must agree to disagree, as you said above.