• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is there any way to cure a truther?[W:2707]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

I did supply some math concerning what the forces and moments would be in my post above, which I was probably editing for detail while you posted this.

Tony, please include in another edit (or in a new post) the input values that you used and the equations that you used for obtaining each of the results.

Fallen.
 
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Tony, please include in another edit (or in a new post) the input values that you used and the equations that you used for obtaining each of the results.

Fallen.

Dynamic pressure

q = 1/2pV^2

where p = density of air at 0.08 lbs/ft^3

and V = velocity of 806.7 ft/sec (550 mph).

The aileron area I used of 12 square feet would be a typical one and its location on the wing 35 feet away from the longitudinal axis would be somewhat typical. The moment is just force x lever arm or distance to the axis.

I hope the high forces and moments show you why precise maneuvers are not made with commercial airliners at high speed at sea level.
 
Last edited:
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Dynamic pressure

q = 1/2pV^2

where p = density of air at 0.08 lbs/ft^3

and V = velocity of 806.7 ft/sec (550 mph).

The aileron area I used of 12 square feet would be a typical one and its location on the wing 35 feet away from the longitudinal axis would be somewhat typical. The moment is just force x lever arm or distance to the axis.

I hope the high forces and moments show you why precise maneuvers are not made with commercial airliners at high speed at sea level.

And how did you calculate the force resulted from the dynamic pressure?
How did you calculate the force on the aileron when it was then lifted by 5 degrees?
And how from the force acting on the aileron you calculated the force on the wing?
Do you measure forces in lbs in the US not in Newtons or an equivalent?

EDIT: In short, Tony like I've already asked you several times can you provide your full math workings; that include equations, the values that have been used in these equations and the results, preferably in a coherent manner with explanations to why you approximated each thing as you did - the same goes regarding the stick movement equations and calculations.


Fallen.
 
Last edited:
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

And how did you calculate the force resulted from the dynamic pressure?
How did you calculate the force on the aileron when it was then lifted by 5 degrees?
And how from the force acting on the aileron you calculated the force on the wing?
Do you measure forces in lbs in the US not in Newtons or an equivalent?

EDIT: In short, Tony like I've already asked you several times can you provide your full math workings; that include equations, the values that have been used in these equations and the results, preferably in a coherent manner with explanations to why you approximated each thing as you did - the same goes regarding the stick movement equations and calculations.


Fallen.

The force on the aileron is generated by the surface force from the dynamic pressure F = P x A.

The vertical force is the vertical component due to 5 degrees with the aileron itself being the hypotenuse in a classic trigonometry equation.

The vertical force on the wing is the vertical force on the aileron. The moment is that force x distance to roll axis (longidinal centerline of the plane)

We generally measure force in lbs in the United States. If you need me to explain lbs. vs. Newtons to you we need to stop this conversation. In fact, I am not too sure you are being genuine here and it seems like you might be looking to waste my time. I have explained more than enough for you to be satisfied that the forces and moments at 550 mph at sea level on an airliner would preclude precise maneuvers by a human pilot.
 
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

The force on the aileron is generated by the surface force from the dynamic pressure F = P x A.
The vertical force is the vertical component due to 5 degrees with the aileron itself being the hypotenuse in a classic trigonometry equation.
The vertical force on the wing is the vertical force on the aileron. The moment is that force x distance to roll axis (longidinal centerline of the plane)

We generally measure force in lbs in the United States. If you need me to explain lbs. vs. Newtons to you we need to stop this conversation. In fact, I am not too sure you are being genuine here and it seems like you might be looking to waste my time. I have explained more than enough for you to be satisfied that the forces and moments at 550 mph at sea level on an airliner would preclude precise maneuvers by a human pilot.

Tony,

Nobody wastes your time, all I'm asking you is to present your full math workings; that include all the equations, the values that have been used in these equations and the results, in a coherent manner with explanations to why you approximated each thing as you did - the same goes regarding the stick movement equations and calculations.
So your claims could be assessed and analysed by the people that post in this thread.

That is what I've been asking you to do for several posts now.

Fallen.
 
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Tony,

Nobody wastes your time, all I'm asking you is to present your full math workings; that include all the equations, the values that have been used in these equations and the results, in a coherent manner with explanations to why you approximated each thing as you did - the same goes regarding the stick movement equations and calculations.
So your claims could be assessed and analysed by the people that post in this thread.

That is what I've been asking you to do for several posts now.

Fallen.

Okay, I will do it when I get a chance. I did forget to divide the weight of air in lbs./ft^3 by gravity to get the mass density. The dynamic pressure at 550 mph is about 1,240 lbs/ft^2. I will try to find the area of a 767-200's ailerons and their distance from the longitudinal axis. I will also try to find the wing specifications to show what resistance air friction would apply to impede rotation.

However, even using the above figure and a 5 degree movement of the 12 sq. foot ailerons at 35 feet from the axis, one can see that the moment is still very high at about 91,000 ft-lbs. Even a 1 degree movement of the ailerons here would generate about 18,000 ft-lbs. of torque trying to spin the aircraft.
 
Last edited:
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

take a pencil and place an axle of some sort through the middle of it. now spin it as hard as you can using 1 finger. Now do the same with a 10 foot pole and use your whole body to spin it. You will be surprised to learn that you can spin the pencil faster with just 1 finger than you can the 10 foot pole using all your strength.

I also meant to explain that the reasons for the resistance you are talking about here are the gravity load on the bearing of the axle and the friction it generates. If the bearings were nearly friction free there would essentially be no difference between trying to spin the pencil or the 10 foot pole.

Air friction trying to resist rotation of the aircraft due to control surface forces and moments would be much less resistive than friction caused by gravity loads.
 
Last edited:
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Okay, I will do it when I get a chance. I did forget to divide the weight of air in lbs./ft^3 by gravity to get the mass density. The dynamic pressure at 550 mph is about 1,240 lbs/ft^2. I will try to find the area of a 767-200's ailerons and their distance from the longitudinal axis. I will also try to find the wing specifications to show what resistance air friction would apply to impede rotation.

However, even using the above figure and a 5 degree movement of the 12 sq. foot ailerons at 35 feet from the axis, one can see that the moment is still very high at about 91,000 ft-lbs. Even a 1 degree movement of the ailerons here would generate about 18,000 ft-lbs. of torque trying to spin the aircraft.

Oh well.
Just to make your life a bit easier in calculating the actual rolling moment created by the displacement of the ailerons - watch this video below (starting at around 13:00 till the end), and if you have the time i suggest to you to watch the entire series of the lectures - because if you'd keep using basic high-school physics to asses the forces, moments and etc... that are involved and working on an aircraft during flight...you'd just lose any credibility that you might have had here.



Ah and read the article, it would be definitely very useful if you'd try to actually provide proper mathematical and physical basis for your assertions regarding the forces, the stability and controls of a plane.

http://people.bath.ac.uk/ensmjc/Notes/stability.pdf

Cheers,
Fallen.
 
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Oh well.
Just to make your life a bit easier in calculating the actual rolling moment created by the displacement of the ailerons - watch this video below (starting at around 13:00 till the end), and if you have the time i suggest to you to watch the entire series of the lectures - because if you'd keep using basic high-school physics to asses the forces, moments and etc... that are involved and working on an aircraft during flight...you'd just lose any credibility that you might have had here.

Ah and read the article, it would be definitely very useful if you'd try to actually provide proper mathematical and physical basis for your assertions regarding the forces, the stability and controls of a plane.

In reality the professor is just getting into the fine points, which needs to be done for design. However, what we are talking about here only requires gross calculations since the amount of pressure at 550 mph at sea level is many times (11 to 13 x) what the optimal control is designed for. So my assertion that the aircraft would be very difficult to control for a human pilot and rough order of magnitude calculations are more than sufficient. It is kind of like showing that a steel bolt with a shear yield strength of 50,000 psi will certainly fail with a 200,000 psi vertical shear load even if its application angle can vary by +/-45 degrees, since the vertical shear stress would still be about 140,000 psi in the lowest stress positions. There is no need to go further and get into exactly what the load angle actually is.

However, if you insist on finer calculations you need to do them also, so we can compare notes. All you have done thus far is provide links which got into some more sophisticated and finer detail calculations which aren't necessary here, and you have provided no basis for showing they are. Let me know when you have done your calculations.
 
Last edited:
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

In reality the professor is just getting into the fine points, which needs to be done for design. However, what we are talking about here only requires gross calculations since the amount of pressure at 550 mph at sea level is many times (11 to 13 x) what the optimal control is designed for. So my assertion that the aircraft would be very difficult to control for a human pilot and rough order of magnitude calculations are more than sufficient. It is kind of like showing that a steel bolt with a shear yield strength of 50,000 psi will certainly fail at a 200,000 psi vertical shear load even if its application angle can vary by +/-45 degrees, since the vertical shear stress would still be about 140,000 psi in the lowest stress position. There is no need to go further and get into exactly what the load angle actually is.

However, if you insist on finer calculations you need to do them also, so we can compare notes. All you have done thus far is provide links which got into some more sophisticated and finer detail calculations which aren't necessary here, and you have provided no basis for showing they are.

Tony you're done.
I gave you multiple chances to present your calculations, you failed to deliver on that - instead providing some half baked force and moment approximations based on high-school physics and poor understanding of the involved physics, math, processes and forces.

You keep posting the same assertion over and over again failing to understand that claiming the same bs over and over again would not make it true.
Multiple posters already told you here that you have not only didn't present anything to base your "assertions" on, but also that you don't really understand what you are talking about.
(You actually tried to calculate the changing rolling moment using a force that acts on each aileron :slapme:, you compared the plane dynamics to buses and cars :slapme:...Tony if I had any tiny bits of respect for you before this plane bs...now your done)

On a final note, you are making the assertions here, hence you need to provide the physical and the mathematical proof that your assertion are indeed correct, without them these are only your own personal assertions.

To make it short, welcome to Menard_K's and HD's club, i'm sure they will be happy to hear your high-school level physics assessments.

Fallen.
 
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

In reality the professor is just getting into the fine points, which needs to be done for design. However, what we are talking about here only requires gross calculations since the amount of pressure at 550 mph at sea level is many times (11 to 13 x) what the optimal control is designed for. So my assertion that the aircraft would be very difficult to control for a human pilot and rough order of magnitude calculations are more than sufficient. It is kind of like showing that a steel bolt with a shear yield strength of 50,000 psi will certainly fail with a 200,000 psi vertical shear load even if its application angle can vary by +/-45 degrees, since the vertical shear stress would still be about 140,000 psi in the lowest stress positions. There is no need to go further and get into exactly what the load angle actually is.

However, if you insist on finer calculations you need to do them also, so we can compare notes. All you have done thus far is provide links which got into some more sophisticated and finer detail calculations which aren't necessary here, and you have provided no basis for showing they are. Let me know when you have done your calculations.


The MSM could clear this up instantly and the fact that they do nothing, speaks volumes.
The fact is, if the original of the Evan Fairbanks video were available for examination, the
speed of the aircraft could be a non-issue, because at 30 frames/sec, the "aircraft" would
have traveled its own length in X number of frames and that would tell you beyond any doubt
how fast the "aircraft" was traveling.

The idea that two times over & on the same day, two airliners would act as "battering rams"
and punch holes in steel framed skyscrapers without splitting open the fuselage or breaking off
wings, jet engines ( etc.... ) really people, you buy this crap that the MSM is peddling?
 
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

after 1610 posts, it has become painfully clear that there is, indeed, no way to cure a truther

You can't increase the IQs of morons either.

After 12 years what would physicists look like if they said airliners could not have destroyed the towers?

So how can they even discuss the distributions of steel and concrete down the towers after not saying it was important all along?

psik
 
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

I also meant to explain that the reasons for the resistance you are talking about here are the gravity load on the bearing of the axle and the friction it generates. If the bearings were nearly friction free there would essentially be no difference between trying to spin the pencil or the 10 foot pole.

Air friction trying to resist rotation of the aircraft due to control surface forces and moments would be much less resistive than friction caused by gravity loads.


Tony you are way off base on this whole thing. BTW dihedral has nothing to do with airfriction it's effect is upon lift.
 
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Tony you're done.
I gave you multiple chances to present your calculations, you failed to deliver on that - instead providing some half baked force and moment approximations based on high-school physics and poor understanding of the involved physics, math, processes and forces.

You keep posting the same assertion over and over again failing to understand that claiming the same bs over and over again would not make it true.
Multiple posters already told you here that you have not only didn't present anything to base your "assertions" on, but also that you don't really understand what you are talking about.
(You actually tried to calculate the changing rolling moment using a force that acts on each aileron :slapme:, you compared the plane dynamics to buses and cars :slapme:...Tony if I had any tiny bits of respect for you before this plane bs...now your done)

On a final note, you are making the assertions here, hence you need to provide the physical and the mathematical proof that your assertion are indeed correct, without them these are only your own personal assertions.

To make it short, welcome to Menard_K's and HD's club, i'm sure they will be happy to hear your high-school level physics assessments.

Fallen.

Oh, thank you kind sir for giving me multiple chances to do your requested dissertation when simple calculations are all that is necessary to show that there is a serious problem with a claim that flying an airliner at 550 mph at sea level and performing precision maneuvers could be done by a human pilot.

You on the other hand have shown no work whatsoever. Yet amazingly you feel qualified to judge mine. This coming from the person who admits to not understanding what aeroelastic effects are. It really isn't wrong to consider your behaviour here insidious.

The forces do apply to the aileron on each wing. One goes up and one goes down and since they generate a moment about an axis from opposite sides they add. This is another one of those situations where your ignorance is showing.
 
Last edited:
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Oh, thank you kind sir for giving me multiple chances to do your requested dissertation when simple calculations are all that is necessary to show that there is a serious problem with a claim that flying an airliner at 550 mph at sea level and performing precision maneuvers could be done by a human pilot.

You on the other hand have shown no work whatsoever. Yet amazingly you feel qualified to judge mine. This coming from the person who admits to not understanding what aeroelastic effects are. It really isn't wrong to consider your behaviour here insidious.

Two things that I would like to address here,
1: early on in my "truther" experience I remember talking to some Pilots for 911 truth people and
I was shown data that indicates as a design feature of commercial airliners, the aircraft will
tend to climb at speeds about some arbitrary limit like possibly 400 mph, so level flight near sea-
level at above 400 mph is impossible. ( speed varies for different types of commercial airliners
but the concept is the same )

2: Aircraft companies conduct wind-tunnel tests of aircraft designs to see what happens at various
speeds & altitudes. at above 20,000 ft an airliner can easily travel 500 mph without damage, however
at near sea-level, there is the distinct danger of damaging the aircraft if it even could be operated at
500 mph that close to sea-level.

So lets get real here, if there was an aircraft at all, and if it was a commercial airliner, it was NOT traveling
550 mph that near sea-level. NOT HAPPENING!
 
Last edited:
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

And how did you calculate the force resulted from the dynamic pressure?
How did you calculate the force on the aileron when it was then lifted by 5 degrees?
And how from the force acting on the aileron you calculated the force on the wing?
Do you measure forces in lbs in the US not in Newtons or an equivalent?

EDIT: In short, Tony like I've already asked you several times can you provide your full math workings; that include equations, the values that have been used in these equations and the results, preferably in a coherent manner with explanations to why you approximated each thing as you did - the same goes regarding the stick movement equations and calculations.


Fallen.

You gotta learn when to hold 'em, and learn when to fold 'em, if you want to have a chance at winning. :mrgreen:
 
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Tony you are way off base on this whole thing. BTW dihedral has nothing to do with airfriction it's effect is upon lift.

Its effect is upon stability.

You sim guys wouldn't know that. :mrgreen:
 
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Its effect is upon stability.

You sim guys wouldn't know that. :mrgreen:

Yes, it is used for stability and one of the disadvantages to it is an increase in dihedral angle actually decreases lift. Quag only said it had an effect on lift, but it seemed as though he was implying it was used to increase it. If so, he would be wrong there also.

It seems to be used primarily to bring the Cg of the aircraft and the line of action from lift closer together on aircraft with wings having their root at the bottom of the fuselage, since without it they are essentially top heavy relative to where the lift would be applied.

http://www.aviation-history.com/theory/wing_dihedral.htm
 
Last edited:
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Two things that I would like to address here,
1: early on in my "truther" experience I remember talking to some Pilots for 911 truth people and
I was shown data that indicates as a design feature of commercial airliners, the aircraft will
tend to climb at speeds about some arbitrary limit like possibly 400 mph, so level flight near sea-
level at above 400 mph is impossible. ( speed varies for different types of commercial airliners
but the concept is the same )

2: Aircraft companies conduct wind-tunnel tests of aircraft designs to see what happens at various
speeds & altitudes. at above 20,000 ft an airliner can easily travel 500 mph without damage, however
at near sea-level, there is the distinct danger of damaging the aircraft if it even could be operated at
500 mph that close to sea-level.

So lets get real here, if there was an aircraft at all, and if it was a commercial airliner, it was NOT traveling
550 mph that near sea-level. NOT HAPPENING!

I don't think you can say the aircraft could not be traveling at 550 mph at sea level without knowing the structural details of where and under what maneuver conditions it would actually come apart. Of course, the aircraft manufacturers don't want it done to eliminate any risk of damage, but that doesn't mean the plane can't take level flight there, at least once since multiple times would then bring fatigue into the picture.

There is a big difference between being able to travel at 550 mph at sea level, and performing precision maneuvers at the dynamic pressure there, on a plane designed for optimal control at dynamic pressures which are about 8% of those generated at 550 mph at sea level.
 
Last edited:
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

I don't think you can say the aircraft could not be traveling at 550 mph at sea level without knowing the structural details of where and under what maneuver conditions it would actually come apart. Of course, the aircraft manufacturers don't want it done to eliminate any risk of damage, but that doesn't mean the plane can't take level flight there, at least once since multiple times would then bring fatigue into the picture.

There is a big difference between being able to travel at 550 mph at sea level, and performing precision maneuvers at the dynamic pressure there, on a plane designed for optimal control at dynamic pressures which are about 8% of those generated at 550 mph at sea level.

My take on this, if the calculations show that the at cruising altitude, the forces are only 8% of what would be encountered at near sea-level ... that about sums it up, we are talking about forces on the parts of the aircraft 12X of what routine operation would be. This sounds super risky as in danger of breaking something .. and if there were hijackers, they were either too dumb to understand the danger ( & that is also the risk of not completing the mission and not pleasing Allah ) OR, if they were smart enough to know the risk, that is just crazy to think that anybody would chance blowing the mission by flying so fast.
If indeed flying that fast at near sea level is even possible. For this and a host of other reasons, MY opinion on this is that the whole commercial airliners used as weapons bit is a non-starter. Missiles, maybe, explosives in the towers, most certainly!
 
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

My take on this, if the calculations show that the at cruising altitude, the forces are only 8% of what would be encountered at near sea-level ... that about sums it up, we are talking about forces on the parts of the aircraft 12X of what routine operation would be. This sounds super risky as in danger of breaking something .. and if there were hijackers, they were either too dumb to understand the danger ( & that is also the risk of not completing the mission and not pleasing Allah ) OR, if they were smart enough to know the risk, that is just crazy to think that anybody would chance blowing the mission by flying so fast.
If indeed flying that fast at near sea level is even possible. For this and a host of other reasons, MY opinion on this is that the whole commercial airliners used as weapons bit is a non-starter. Missiles, maybe, explosives in the towers, most certainly!

Since the air density at 35,000 feet is about 40% of what it is at sea level, then flying at 550 mph at 35,000 feet will produce dynamic pressures that are about 40% of those at 550 mph at sea level.

The 8% dynamic pressure value that I mentioned is for landing and take-off airspeeds of about 150 mph relative to the dynamic pressure generated at 550 mph at sea level. Dynamic pressure is a function of the mass density of air and velocity squared (q = 1/2pV^2), where the mass density of air at sea level is .00256 lbm/ft^3. The way to calculate the relative values at a given air density is to simply square the velocities and divide. In other words 550^2 is about 13 times greater than 150^2, or 150^2 is about 8% of 550^2.

My point in bringing this up is to show it would have been exceedingly difficult for a human pilot to perform any turns with any level of precision at 550 mph at sea level. The system is optimized for landing and take-off control, where dynamic pressures are 8% of what they are at 550 mph at sea level. At high altitude some of that pressure difference is mitigated by lower air density and optimal control there is not necessary as there is much more room to maneuver.
 
Last edited:
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Since the air density at 35,000 feet is about 40% of what it is at sea level, then flying at 550 mph at 35,000 feet will produce dynamic pressures that are about 40% of those at 550 mph at sea level.

The 8% dynamic pressure value that I mentioned is for landing and take-off airspeeds of about 150 mph relative to the dynamic pressure generated at 550 mph at sea level. Dynamic pressure is a function of the mass density of air and velocity squared (q = 1/2pV^2), where the mass density of air at sea level is .00256 lbm/ft^3. The way to calculate the relative values at a given air density is to simply square the velocities and divide. In other words 550^2 is about 13 times greater than 150^2, or 150^2 is about 8% of 550^2.

My point in bringing this up is to show it would have been exceedingly difficult for a human pilot to perform any turns with any level of precision at 550 mph at sea level. The system is optimized for landing and take-off control, where dynamic pressures are 8% of what they are at 550 mph at sea level. At high altitude some of that pressure difference is mitigated by lower air density and optimal control there is not necessary as there is much more room to maneuver.

It wasn't at sea level and what is precision? The building is as wide as a city block. Kinda hard to completely miss and they almost managed to miss it.
 
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

It wasn't at sea level and what is precision? The building is as wide as a city block. Kinda hard to completely miss and they almost managed to miss it.

The building's were 207 feet wide. This is about the width of commercial airport runways. To align with those accurately the aircraft slows down to about 160 mph on approach. This allows for the level of control needed. You apparently don't appreciate how hard it would be to hit the buildings in an airliner moving at 550 mph at sea level with dynamic pressures about 12 times what they are at landing approach speeds. Many pilots have tried in commercial aircraft simulators and were not able to do it at that speed, but were able at landing approach speeds.

The buildings would be considered sea level. There is very little air density difference between sea level and 1,000 to 2,000 feet, if that is what you are trying to say isn't sea level.

The precision was the very accurate turns made to bring the aircraft in line with the building when just two miles away it was headed towards a different point.

Have you watched Achimspok's videos on this issue? Here they are for your convenience http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClDtwOR-3wQ and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz5LuUpcCwU

Here is 2:14 of Achimspok's video with the information pertinent to what I am discussing, in case you need to watch a few times http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ORM0WzuAcA to understand.
 
Last edited:
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

The building's were 207 feet wide. This is about the width of commercial airport runways. To align with those accurately the aircraft slows down to about 160 mph on approach. This allows for the level of control needed. You apparently don't appreciate how hard it would be to hit the buildings in an airliner moving at 550 mph at sea level with dynamic pressures about 12 times what they are at landing approach speeds. Many pilots have tried in commercial aircraft simulators and were not able to do it at that speed, but were able at landing approach speeds.

The buildings would be considered sea level. There is very little air density difference between sea level and 1,000 to 2,000 feet, if that is what you are trying to say isn't sea level.

The precision was the very accurate turns made to bring the aircraft in line with the building when just two miles away it was headed towards a different point.

Have you watched Achimspok's videos on this issue? Here they are for your convenience UA175 - the last 12 seconds - YouTube and UA175 - the last 12 seconds - part2 - YouTube

wow man, a city block = 207 ft? ... or? The whole argument going on here contributes energy to the argument that there could NOT possibly have been a commercial airliner crashed into the World Trade Center tower(s). There is logic and reason for the "no-planes" point of view, and if people can stop accusing me of being an escaped mental patient long enough to actually look at the evidence .... oh well .... wish in one hand ....

whatever .....
 
Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

wow man, a city block = 207 ft? ... or? The whole argument going on here contributes energy to the argument that there could NOT possibly have been a commercial airliner crashed into the World Trade Center tower(s). There is logic and reason for the "no-planes" point of view, and if people can stop accusing me of being an escaped mental patient long enough to actually look at the evidence .... oh well .... wish in one hand ....

whatever .....

I have never seen good evidence for the "no planes" claim. However, there is very good evidence that the plane was electronically guided into the building and that it would need to be more involved than the autopilot on the plane. There would need to be radio beacons also.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom