Creative Speculation

ocpagu

(1,954 posts)

30. Yes, I do need an explanation for that.

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:36 AM

Feb 2013

Last edited Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:45 PM - Edit history (1)

What's the explanation?

The entire plane is inside the building? Is that what you are saying?

If the plane crashed against the building façade, yes, there should be debris outside the building too. And large debris. Where are the wings? Where's the plane tail? Where's the plane body?

I didn't say the pictures are fake. It's just your usual straw man fallacy argumentation line in action.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

103 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Martin Sheen: 9/11 Questions 'Unanswered,' Building 7 'Very Suspicious' [View all] Little Star Nov 2012 OP

Those are the questions that dare not be asked in public. gtar100 Jan 2013 #1

"No parts of an airplane found at the Pentagon crash?" William Seger Jan 2013 #3

Yeah, right the titanium in the engines just vaporized. RoccoR5955 Feb 2013 #6

Um... who is asking you to believe that "engines just vaporized?" William Seger Feb 2013 #7

There seems to be quite an obvious discrepancy... ocpagu Feb 2013 #8

There seems to be quite an obvious discrepancy between "no-planer" claims and reality William Seger Feb 2013 #14

No trouble at all. ocpagu Feb 2013 #15

So, a plane crashed into that wall William Seger Feb 2013 #25

Yes, I do need an explanation for that. ocpagu Feb 2013 #30

No, not the "entire plane" William Seger Feb 2013 #32

Your own picture proves my point. ocpagu Feb 2013 #33

Yeah, where are the wings and tail and body!?! William Seger Feb 2013 #34

You're the one not answering my question, so... ocpagu Feb 2013 #35

I'm not sure you are qualified to make those assertions. AZCat Feb 2013 #38

I have eyes and a brain. ocpagu Feb 2013 #39

No, you're not. AZCat Feb 2013 #40

I don't need an expert to tell me that a Boeing 757 can't convert into a 20 in alluminium piece. ocpagu Feb 2013 #41

Apparently, you do need an expert William Seger Feb 2013 #42

That wouldn't change the fact that planes can't evaporate ocpagu Feb 2013 #48

They didn't evaporate, as photos already posted have demonstrated cpwm17 Feb 2013 #51

Oh, I see... it "disintegrated"... ocpagu Feb 2013 #54

Given your response in post #41 cpwm17 Feb 2013 #55

This message was self-deleted by its author Prog_gun_owner Feb 2013 #75

Didn't a turbofan powered plane go over 750 mph at less than 1000 feet back in the 1950's? Make7 Feb 2013 #76

Cruising speed of a 757 is Mach 0.8... SidDithers Feb 2013 #77

are you sure? Prog_gun_owner Feb 2013 #79

We know precisely how fast AA77 was flying William Seger Feb 2013 #80

It seems honesty is valued here so I'll be honest. Prog_gun_owner Feb 2013 #86

a little dated...? tomk52 May 2013 #99

Of course a 757 is capable of 500 mph at sea level tomk52 Feb 2013 #78

That you think a handful of photos is sufficient... AZCat Feb 2013 #46

Don't be ridiculous. ocpagu Feb 2013 #49

That's quite amusing. AZCat Feb 2013 #60

"Please understand that you're not the first person to have raised this poorly-supported claim" ocpagu Feb 2013 #70

You have no idea how much debris there was William Seger Feb 2013 #43

Your pictures prove my point... ocpagu Feb 2013 #50

Your inability to figure out what happened to the plane doesn't prove anything William Seger Feb 2013 #63

The same can be said about your inability to explain what happened to the plane. ocpagu Feb 2013 #69

Have you ever seen the remains of a NASCAR vehicle after hitting a wall at 1/3 the speed of this AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #100

Other reason why there's so little debris... tomk52 Jun 2013 #103

That rotor is NOT from a 747 RoccoR5955 Feb 2013 #18

Of course it wasn't. AZCat Feb 2013 #19

Okay, then it was even bigger! n/t RoccoR5955 Feb 2013 #44

Sigh. Codeine Feb 2013 #73

Bullshit William Seger Feb 2013 #21

Back it up RoccoR5955 Feb 2013 #45

No problem William Seger Feb 2013 #47

Turbine disk hubs, not withstanding, RoccoR5955 Feb 2013 #57

Um, did you happen to notice William Seger Feb 2013 #64

Right, strike three for you. n/t RoccoR5955 Feb 2013 #67

Good snappy comeback!!! zappaman Feb 2013 #68

Not only did the engines vaporize, but so did the black boxes. RoccoR5955 Feb 2013 #81

No they didn't. zappaman Feb 2013 #82

Funny that we have heard, anything about the data RoccoR5955 Feb 2013 #84

What's that have to do with your assertion that the black boxes were not found? zappaman Feb 2013 #85

Well if I heard something that they were found, RoccoR5955 Mar 2013 #87

AA77 and UA93 flight data recorders WERE found William Seger Feb 2013 #83

No more questions? William Seger Jan 2013 #5

Even if the film is made.... Frank_Norris_Lives Jan 2013 #2

There are literally thousands of buildings in the country... William Seger Jan 2013 #4

And yet, WTC remains as the only known example... ocpagu Feb 2013 #16

"the only known example" William Seger Feb 2013 #22

There's nothing in common between Tacoma Bridge and WTC events. ocpagu Feb 2013 #24

But I said, "the only known example of a bridge collapsing in a 40 mph wind" William Seger Feb 2013 #36

You have no answers. ocpagu Feb 2013 #52

You don't know what you're talking about William Seger Feb 2013 #66

Still nothing. ocpagu Feb 2013 #71

Nothing that you can admit, obviously, but that's hardly the issue William Seger Feb 2013 #72

Untrue. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #101

Slight correction... tomk52 Jun 2013 #102

What impresses me the most about this... ocpagu Feb 2013 #9

You seem to think it's a matter of subjective opinion William Seger Feb 2013 #23

I see no reason... ocpagu Feb 2013 #27

"when there are thousands and thousands of experts who disagree." zappaman Feb 2013 #10

Who's the "structural engineering community"? ocpagu Feb 2013 #11

Read the link and you get your answer. zappaman Feb 2013 #12

Nope. No answer in your link. ocpagu Feb 2013 #13

As I expected, you have no answers. ocpagu Feb 2013 #17

Really? Academics who have lost their jobs? AZCat Feb 2013 #20

Actually, I was waiting for you to answer my questions. zappaman Feb 2013 #26

And I'm still waiting for you to answer mine. ocpagu Feb 2013 #28

I asked you first. zappaman Feb 2013 #29

You can start by here: ocpagu Feb 2013 #31

Ah, yes - AE911Truth, the font of accuracy. AZCat Feb 2013 #37

Really not interested... ocpagu Feb 2013 #53

No, of course not. AZCat Feb 2013 #59

Just ... wow ... tomk52 Feb 2013 #56

I won't even bother responding... ocpagu Feb 2013 #58

definition of terms... tomk52 Feb 2013 #61

Welcome to DU! greyl Feb 2013 #62

Thank you. I would like to get OC's serious response … tomk52 Feb 2013 #65

This is a superb example of the intellectual dishonesty of Truthers... tomk52 Feb 2013 #74

As I said before... ocpagu May 2013 #88

Just "wow"... tomk52 May 2013 #89

Doesn't Bazant.... Frank_Norris_Lives May 2013 #92

"Free fall" doesn't have anthing to do with his analysis William Seger May 2013 #93

He does, but its irrelevant tomk52 May 2013 #97

Bazant doesn't actually use any estimate of the acceleration in his analysis William Seger May 2013 #98

If we get over this speed bump... tomk52 May 2013 #90

LOL ocpagu May 2013 #91

LOL, that was a little "Snidley Whiplash" of me... tomk52 May 2013 #94

Ok. ocpagu May 2013 #95

Well, waddaya know... tomk52 May 2013 #96