Russian Airliner Crashes--No Debris Anywhere!!!

[smackaholic]

Is water harder than aluminum?

Pretty sure aluminum is harder.

Ever see what happens to an airplane when it hits water at, oh let’s say 200 mph?

It gets wadded up. Everybody inside dies.

How can this be?

According to LTS’ law of unlike colliding materials, the plane should cut through water like a warm knife through buttah.

You got any arguments that couldn’t be broken by a severely drunk Down’s syndrome sufferer?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Goober McTuber]

You got any arguments that couldn’t be broken by a severely drunk Down’s syndrome sufferer?

You're severely drunk at 3:39 PM on a weekday?

[Left Seater]

You got any arguments that couldn’t be broken by a severely drunk Down’s syndrome sufferer?

You're severely drunk at 3:39 PM on a weekday?

Who cares if he is drunk as long as he isn’t driving. But did he out himself as having Down syndrome?

[Goober McTuber]

You got any arguments that couldn’t be broken by a severely drunk Down’s syndrome sufferer?

You're severely drunk at 3:39 PM on a weekday?

Who cares if he is drunk as long as he isn’t driving. But did he out himself as having Down syndrome?

I always thought that was obvious.

[LTS TRN 2]

How dare you play your silly troll action?

There's not a single part of the 9/11 Commission report that can stand up to even basic scrutiny.

You don't dare to reveal anything beyond your childish trolling. Go die.

WW

[smackaholic]

You got any arguments that couldn’t be broken by a severely drunk Down’s syndrome sufferer?

You're severely drunk at 3:39 PM on a weekday?

It's nice having a job where I can set my own hours.

[LTS TRN 2]

Is water harder than aluminum?

Pretty sure aluminum is harder.

Ever see what happens to an airplane when it hits water at, oh let’s say 200 mph?

It gets wadded up. Everybody inside dies.

How can this be?

According to LTS’ law of unlike colliding materials, the plane should cut through water like a warm knife through buttah.

You got any arguments that couldn’t be broken by a severely drunk Down’s syndrome sufferer?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Smackie, you're apparently calling out Issac Newton on his Third Law, explained thus,

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.


Your suggestion that an airplane should knife into the ocean is idiotic. Are you some sort of seriously uneducated hillbillly? Water is like concrete when struck. If the "aluminum" is shaped like an arrow it will penetrate to a degree. But if any sort of mass--like an airliner--crashes into water, it will crush and not penetrate.

But crashing into water is irrelevant. In the case of 9/11 the soft aluminum airliner struck the hardened steel building. Okay? That means the soft aluminum COULD NOT slice through the hardened steel.

An airliner crashing into a hardened steel building will crush--and not penetrate.

We have been deceived by some seriously sophisticated duplicity.

Look carefully..the first tower strike (at :33)..you can't see an airliner at all, just a missile..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhROd7Jt3-w

As for the second strike, everything's wrong as far as basic physics. Look at #10, the Hezarkahni vid...look how as the wings (which hold all the fuel) magically slice through the buttery steel frame of WTC 2, a giant bomb explodes on South side of the building. Obviously the explosive fuel and the immediate explosion are completely unconnected. What, you can't plainly see the exaggerated fireball? And of course there's that completely unusual pendulous object clearly attached to the bottom right of the fuselage. And look further at the distorted ratio of the airliner itself as it magically disappears...it's way too big.

Look again.

WW

[smackaholic]

Let’s assume the gubmint was behind it all.

Do you not think they’d be able to store all their nefarious implements inside the fuselage?

Not enough room in a 767. No problems, use a 747. We’re talking the international Zio-Nazi cabal here. They could use whatever plane they deemed necessary.

As for crashing into water, you are correct. The airliner does not slice through it. Water, as you said is “like concrete”.

Care to expound on that? Does it magically change form before the plane impacts it?

No, it doesn’t.

Yet water, which is demonstrably much softer than aluminum, wads said aluminum into balls of shit.

This same idea applies to aluminum, in this case playing the role of water and steel columns.

All of this makes perfect sense.....unless you don’t want it to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[smackaholic]

Interesting footage. I especially like the bit at the end where they claim a missile is fired “seconds” before impact.

Seconds before impact, that jet liner was over NY harbor, but I’ll let that go. We all know you meant to say milliseconds.

Anyhoo, you are saying that a full sized commercial jet liner traveling at 300-400 mph isn’t up to knocking down a building? It needs to launch a very small missile.....microseconds before impact?

You really are a special kind of retard.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[smackaholic]

Want some more material science experiments?

Ever use a pressure washer?

They’re pretty neat.

Really, really cool ones are used in machining applications to cut metal.

How can that be?

Water can’t slice through metal. It’s impossible.

But it isn’t.

For some reason, soft materials, hurled at hard materials with enough velocity, can achieve ‘bode over the harder material.

Ain’t science great?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LTS TRN 2]

Smackie, you're offering nervous nonsensical ramblings.

Do you not notice in the vid that the building itself explodes even as the soft, fuel-laden wings are magically slicing through the stainless steel frame?

Why is the building exploding? The wing in barely into the building when the Southern side just explodes.

And no, despite your weaving and dodging, a soft-metal airplane cannot slice through steel in ANY circumstances. Are you kidding? How could you be so obtuse as to suggest such a blatant violation of basic physics.

As for the buildings (all three) being rigged in advance with explosives, well this is obvious when we examine the respective collapses--and we can plainly see the timed detonations going off.

As for the Zio-Nazi cabal who was behind it, well, look at what they've done starting exactly on that day. A Permanent War, several chapters of which have been based on total lies and relentless disinformation. And right now, the capo of the Irgun gang, Bibi, is likely going straight to prison.

But as long as seemingly rational adults like yourself are willing to suspend your basic reasoning and somehow toddle along pretending you believe the ludicrous official story, the Zionist (neocon) malignancy will continue to flourish--and destroy our world.

WW

[smackaholic]

You are aware of the layout of the building, aren't you? Once you get past the exterior skeleton, it is wide open. At the moment of impact, thousands of gallons of jet fuel and a few hot engines were tumbling through that wide open space, so it was understandable that there was an instantaneous fireball.

As for the jetliner slicing through, the steel, it did not. What it did was push the beams in and they tore under tension. The water/jet analogy apparently wasn't enough for you as proof that soft things can deform harder things. Not sure why you can't understand this, other than the fact that you don't want to understand it.

BTW, you mention that the paper mache wings couldn't have torn the beams in the manner they plainly did, given the video. Can you explain what did happen?

Did the evil ashkenazi schemers use a jet with depleted Uranium in the wings?

Why bother?

Wouldn't it be better to make it look as real as possible?

I mean, obviously, the damage was done by placed charges, right? No need to reinforce the wings.

BTW, I hadn't thought of it before, but you point to too much exterior damage at WTC and not enough at the Pentagon.

Which is it?

You are an absolute mess.

The WTC plane did more damage because it hit a skyscraper at very high speed which had a relatively flimsy exterior skeleton. The Pentagon plane hit a short, stout, old reinforced concrete building. It was also likely traveling at a lower speed, as hitting such a short target is tougher. Well, unless that target is TiVo.

[LTS TRN 2]

No, the interior of the WTC towers was a huge tremendously strong core, upon which the stories were stacked. This alone completely disproves the "pancake" theory which was initially offered by the 9/11 Commission. Are you aware that this palsied body (along with the equally pathetic NIST report) actually offered TWO theories for the towers' collapse? And these theories actually contradict each other? But neither makes a bit of sense. The solid core would not melt or collapse in any sort of fire, even if it burned for years.

As for the plane slicing through the steel building, well this is exactly what we plainly see in the video. Or what we seem to see. In fact the plane would explode on the surface of the building--and yes there would be some impact damage on the tower, but not just swallowing the entire airliner. And the instant explosion is completely disproportionate--and not even physically connected--to the airliner. And no, "a few hot engines rolling around" is some kind of nonsense as far as a huge explosion. Why do you think an airliner engine would explode? Sure it might catch fire, but a gigantic explosion? Absolute bullshit.

And this notion of soft-metal airliners piercing steel is every bit as false when applied to the massive walls of the pentagon. And what, you're trying to confuse the two and say what? I'm pointing out quite clearly in the case of the pentagon, that of course an airliner could not--and did not--pierce through a single ring of the reinforced walls, let alone three rings. It was obviously a missile.

Here's an actual witness of the initial scene..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07Bn_CC_mrg


Here's your confused nonsense in short..
BTW, I hadn't thought of it before, but you point to too much exterior damage at WTC and not enough at the Pentagon.

Okay, try to get this on one bounce--there should have been only exterior damage at the towers, and only exterior damage at the pentagon. As it was the damage to the towers--the massive explosions--were completely interior, and similarly at the pentagon there should have been no penetration. But all of this basic physics was reversed in what were obviously thoroughly controlled events at both locations.

But the question remains...how and why can a seemingly rational adult continue to accept the ludicrous official explanation? A fear of acknowledging that a coup took place? Just being some sort of Brietbart asshole?