View Single Post
Old 08-08-2006, 01:19 AM   #63
Wren57
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Age: 39
Posts: 2,856
Thanks AZ for taking the time to argue this with him, I don't have the time or patience; its like trying to convince a colorblind toddler that the sky is blue. I quit trying long, long ago... but sometimes just can't keep my mouth shut when I hear some of the more absurd assumptions and "explainations". I love how he got beat on the technical issues so quickly switched topic back to motive... *sigh*


Yeah, it makes perfect sense that the government planted explosives into the buildings and the boeing jumbojets going 450+ mph hit the *exact floors on which the explosives were placed; different floors on each tower, mind you. In addition to that, it makes perfect sense that said explosives could remain in-tact and un-detonated after being hit by many tons of 450+ mph metal and tons of jet fuel... and it makes sense that the remote detonating devices could also remain in tact... I know how well wiring holds up to burning jet fuel. Oh, remote control you say? Yeah, that holds up in jet fuel too. Encased strong enough to withstand impact and the burning? Well, the encasing would simply be too good for the explosion to cause any damage, even IF it were able to be detonated post-impact, which it wouldn't be. And of course the Empire State Building incident is exactly like this one, because after all, everyone knows a B25 that this:



flying at 200mph and carrying maybe 300 gallons of fuel

equals



this, flying at 450-500mph loaded down with tons of jet fuel for a cross-country flight

Oh, but the picture of the 737 is smaller, so surely that means the gov't is up to something...
__________________
yeah, its that big

Last edited by Wren57 : 08-08-2006 at 01:32 AM.
Wren57 is offline   Reply With Quote