9/11

Kyuubi · 06-29-2010, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notimpressed

There is nothing you have said that is verifiable or in anyway fact.

And according to your standards if it does not agree with your preconceived conclusions, nothing will ever suffice... whether from an "official" source, or from your own kin of beliefs. Irreducible delusion at it's finest

notimpressed · 06-29-2010, 07:57 AM

Nothing is preconceived. It is from observation. More of your Fox news attacking the presenter and not the presentation. This name calling does not make any case.

The plane is a one object, There is no variation in mass while it is intact. It is a single penetrator, That failed broke up and the parts become individual penetrators of there own mass.

The Pentagon Building Performance Report (January 2003) by the American Society of Civil Engineers. This report also mentions it disintegrated moving through. When you read the ACTUAL report. yeah, well then they are full of it.

notimpressed · 06-29-2010, 08:04 AM

As I read further the report contradicts itself.....IN another area claiming it did break up on impact...

its also notes spalling. This also indicated non penetrative damage.

Kyuubi · 06-29-2010, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notimpressed

its also notes spalling. This also indicated non penetrative damage.

Spalling would be the effect of fire, not the aircraft. It's a secondary feature.
I'm ending this with you now until you can muster up the strength to support your arguments. I think 4 pages of ad nauseum argument is enough waste considering it's getting nowhere. Bye

notimpressed · 06-29-2010, 08:29 PM

That is not the defintion of spalling. And as the reprot has contridcted itslef its far from any verification of what really happened.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

06-29-2010, 07:57 AM	Last edited by notimpressed; 06-29-2010 at 08:02 AM.. Report this post #222
notimpressed Representative Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 157	Nothing is preconceived. It is from observation. More of your Fox news attacking the presenter and not the presentation. This name calling does not make any case. The plane is a one object, There is no variation in mass while it is intact. It is a single penetrator, That failed broke up and the parts become individual penetrators of there own mass. The Pentagon Building Performance Report (January 2003) by the American Society of Civil Engineers. This report also mentions it disintegrated moving through. When you read the ACTUAL report. yeah, well then they are full of it.

06-29-2010, 08:04 AM	Last edited by notimpressed; 06-29-2010 at 08:13 AM.. Report this post #223
notimpressed Representative Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 157	As I read further the report contradicts itself.....IN another area claiming it did break up on impact... its also notes spalling. This also indicated non penetrative damage.

06-29-2010, 08:29 PM	Report this post #225
notimpressed Representative Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 157	That is not the defintion of spalling. And as the reprot has contridcted itslef its far from any verification of what really happened.