9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom :: View topic - Aluminium will not cut through steel even at 500mph...

FAQ

Memberlist

Chat

Usergroups

Calendar

Profile

Aluminium will not cut through steel even at 500mph...
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

nomore
Minor Poster

Joined: 08 Nov 2006
Posts: 29

Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:22 pm Post subject:

So there are anomolies in the videos... look at my post in another thread about video transcoding and frame rates (http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=36451#36451). Don't you think that if someone went to the trouble of faking all of the videos, that they would make them absolutely perfect?... but then you'd be saying "these videos are fake. They're too perfect".

mason-free party
Moderate Poster

Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 765
Location: Staffordshire

Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 9:06 am Post subject:

Doubting_Thomas wrote:

I too have an engineering background and suggesting the planes couldn't produce that damage or silhouette is utterly preposterous. For a start the cladding on the building (where the majority of the 'imprint' can be seen) is, in fact, aluminium.

Had never heard the "no planes" theory until i came here and its the most ridiculous thing I've every seen on this topic, an obvious red-herring.

My stance: Real planes, no pilots, no passengers, remote avionics package, plus possibly an igniter/booster of some kind to ensure a dramatic "Hollywood" style *BANG*

strange that you've only just joined today like many of the others who attack the no plane theory who are also newbies

THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic

Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009

Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 9:30 am Post subject:

mason-free party wrote:

Doubting_Thomas wrote:

strange that you've only just joined today like many of the others who
attack the no plane theory who are also newbies

Doubting Thomas - you say NPT is propsterous

Perhaps you can explain how the plane melts into the building without meeting any resistance, why there is zero wreckage falling down the side of the building on impact, why there is no fireball at the impact site (only the exit wound) and why there is not one genuine image that identifies the type of plane with the livery of the airline company?

andyb
Validated Poster

Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1025
Location: SW London

Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 9:35 am Post subject:

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:

mason-free party wrote:

Doubting_Thomas wrote:

strange that you've only just joined today like many of the others who
attack the no plane theory who are also newbies

We've gone through this countless times. Snowy even did the maths for you. The melting argument has been disproved. Now you say that because we haven't got good enough images it must be fake?? Surely if you'd faked it you'd take care of that?
_________________
"We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King

THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic

Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009

Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 9:41 am Post subject:

Snowys maths did not prove that a plane made the hole in WTC You say the "melting into the building of the plane" has been debunked - I have seen nothing on this If you have some new information on this then please share it with us

andyb
Validated Poster

Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1025
Location: SW London

Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 9:47 am Post subject:

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:

Snowys maths did not prove that a plane made the hole in WTC

You say the "melting into the building of the plane" has been debunked - I have seen nothing on this

If you have some new information on this then please share it with us

Don't try and shift the burden of proof on me, it is your pet theory. Snowy's calculations proved that a plane would have penetrated the the outer columns due to it's speed and mass. You please explain how those holes were caused and the columns bent inwards.
_________________
"We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King

THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic

Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009

Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:09 am Post subject:

You say the melting argument has been disproved - please post the link that shows this - OR ARE YOU JUST MAKING THIS UP regarding the plane hole - Snowys maths may well prove that a plane is capable of making the hole - it doesn't prove that it did. The hole could have been made with explosives or the beam weapon Now please answer the bit about the melting plane

andyb
Validated Poster

Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1025
Location: SW London

Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:16 am Post subject:

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:

You say the melting argument has been disproved - please post the link that shows this - OR ARE YOU JUST MAKING THIS UP

regarding the plane hole - Snowys maths may well prove that a plane is capable of making the hole - it doesn't prove that it did.

The hole could have been made with explosives or the beam weapon

Now please answer the bit about the melting plane

FFS, you somehow increasingly make me lose the will to live with your postings. I won't write it all out again for you as you seem to ignore anything that proves you to be wrong and it would be a waste of my time. I think it was Owen or Dry Kleaner who explained interlacing to you, go back and read it again. Basing a hypothesis on weak(I'm being kind here) proof is not the way to go. Why don't you expend as much energy discussing pre warnigs, Able Danger, Coleen Rowley, Sibel Edmonds, WT7, etc rather than tryng to appear as some sort of expert on something you can't even explain.
_________________
"We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King

THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic

Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009

Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:22 am Post subject:

andyb wrote:

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:

As I thought - YOU ARE MAKING IT UP

andyb
Validated Poster

Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1025
Location: SW London

Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:28 am Post subject:

you really are an ignoramus. http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=5312&start=0 It was explained here, but you didn't read it then so doubt you'll read it now. _________________ "We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King

THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic

Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009

Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:55 am Post subject:

That posting of dry cleaner proves nowt

andyb
Validated Poster

Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1025
Location: SW London

Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:07 am Post subject:

Nor does your continual posting of low resolution videos from you tube. _________________ "We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King

Thermate
Angel - now passed away

Joined: 13 Nov 2006
Posts: 445

Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 12:33 pm Post subject:

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:

Perhaps you can explain how the plane melts into the building without meeting any resistance

Gladly. It 'melted' precisely because it did meet resistance.

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:

why there is zero wreckage falling down the side of the building on impact

conservation of momentum, kinetic energy.

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:

why there is no fireball at the impact site (only the exit wound)

conservation of momentum, kinetic energy & thermodynamics.

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:

and why there is not one genuine image that identifies the type of plane with the livery of the airline company?

The profile and configuration identifies the type of plane, its not in doubt. What is in doubt is if they were real planes with real pilots and passengers or just remote controlled substitute drones. If the latter, then why bother going to the time and trouble of exactly copying the airline liveries?
_________________
Make love, not money.

THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic

Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009

Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 12:39 pm Post subject:

Thermate wrote:

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:

Perhaps you can explain how the plane melts into the building without meeting any resistance

Gladly. It 'melted' precisely because it did meet resistance.

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:

why there is zero wreckage falling down the side of the building on impact

conservation of momentum, kinetic energy.

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:

why there is no fireball at the impact site (only the exit wound)

conservation of momentum, kinetic energy & thermodynamics.

Your explanations are so poor they are not worthy of comment.

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:

and why there is not one genuine image that identifies the type of plane with the livery of the airline company?

scubadiver
Validated Poster

Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1850
Location: Currently Andover

Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 12:54 pm Post subject:

From the way this thread is going, shouldn't it be in critics corner. I bet JP and AS are thrilled you lot are having this kind of conversation! I am staying on planet Earth. Any kind of greater public awareness is going to be very damaged by these kinds conversations.

Fallious
Moderate Poster

Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762

Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:57 pm Post subject:

Quote:

I know this theory is unpopular with most 9/11 "truthers" and 9/11 activists, and lord knows that I sometimes wonder why I am spending so much time on an apparently ridiculous theory that "no one" believes. Certainly "no sane person would believe that no plane hit the WTC, ESPECIALLY the South tower because EVERYONE saw that, there were THOUSANDS of witnesses".

Quite, and your point is?

Quote:

I know many in the 9/11 "truth movement" just wish the no-planers would go away, as we give a bad, crazy association to "real" 9/11 truth. And even more, many in the 9/11 "truth movement" believe the no-planers are active disinfo artists, paid government shills, meant to disrupt true 9/11 activists.

You do give a crazy association to real 9/11 truth. No plane theory IS a disruption to the process of presenting respectable alternatives to the official story.

Quote:

In fact, I am a private citizen who just wants to know the truth about 9/11. I want to know exactly what happened that day, and specifically I want to know: if 9/11 was an inside job-- how was it set up? It simply is not enough for me to say, "oh, they used patsies for the hijackers, remote control planes and distracted the air defenses with war games". I have been down that road. If you read my archives from when I started this blog, you can see it for yourself.

I'd be interested to know why you think NPT more accurately accounts for the anomalies of the day.

Quote:

Early on, I bought into the whole "let's ignore all 9/11 physical evidence" meme-- big time. I even wrote a couple of posts early on saying how 9/11 activists shouldn't talk about no-plane hitting the Pentagon, because that makes us look bad.

What's your point? The pentagon strike is a boiling pot of contradictory evidence and disinformation. Not so with the twin towers.

Quote:

But you know what? I started looking at the physical evidence. The towers looked like they were blown up. And the Pentagon hit started looking very strange. Then I started looking at the flight 93 crash site-- and that was even stranger. And then it looked to me like no planes crashed at the Pentagon or at Shanksville, though someone tried to make it look like planes did crash. But they could only fake so much. Then the question arose: if there were no planes at the Pentagon or at Shanksville, is it possible they didn't use planes for the WTC either?

This is not a logical step, as any truth critic will tell you the A = B, B = C therefore C = A is a highly dubious way to 'connect dots'. Again, strong evidence of foresight and tampering in the case of F93 and the pentagon and none in the case of the twin towers.

Quote:

Then I started looking at the footage of "UA175" melting into the south tower, and it really didn't seem quite right to me.

Read up on interlacing and artefact issues, these problems were not invented to explain the 'suspicious' footage of the planes hitting the towers - yet they are the CAUSE of 90% of the arguing points in the NPT arsenal. Ask yourself why NP theorists don't analyse high resolution footage from the day, like the NPT debunkers do.

Quote:

Finally, I also began to wonder why so many 9/11 "truth" people were telling me NOT to look at the physical evidence when it was so compelling and clearly bizarre!

Bizarre indeed, specially considering how the 'old' evidence of 9/11 truth has in some form helped to wake up roughly half of America to the self inflicted attacks of Sept. 11th. I wonder how many people NPT wakes up?

Quote:

So-- my nagging feeling is that there is something VERY important about the no-plane theory that deserves attention. I don't want to force it down anyone's throat, but I think it also should be looked at by all 9/11 activists with an open mind.

You are absolutely right, and that's exactly what I did. When I heard about NPT I immediately dug into the sites and documents arguing for it. Unfortunately I have plenty of experience with digital video, compositing and special effects and none of the video evidence cited by NPT rings true.
Further, your blind endorsement of NPT even though you claim no experience of the points it argues is puzzling, not because I don't trust your innate judgement, but because the standard 'truth' timeline of events doesn't even allow for NPT, let alone REQUIRE it to make the events of the day plausible.

Quote:

The evidence for there being no planes is a cumulative argument, without any one 100% infallible piece of evidence. This is much like the whole idea of 9/11 being an "inside job"-- it doesn't rest on one rock-solid piece of evidence, but rather it rests on many official parts of the 9/11 story being improbable, and that these add up to a highly unbelievable official story.

Yet NPT relies on standard truth evidence to make it 'stand up' while that same evidence - simply by it's existence - contradicts NPT. NPT is a sandcastle on an air strip.

Quote:

9/11 being an "inside job" is a bit of a gestalt, really. If one can handle the 9/11 "inside job" gestalt, than handling the no-plane theory should not be a big problem.

And that asserted against all evidence to the contrary. Nice.

Quote:

In any case, it is worth periodically going over the reasons for the no-plane theory, if nothing else than for my own sanity.

So you find it difficult to repeatedly ignore and minimize overwhelming evidence conflicting with your theory? You should pop by critics corner.

Quote:

9/11 facts that support the no-plane theory*:

1) the one "live" shot of "UA175" flying to the South tower, shown from the same feed by three different networks (ABC, CNN, Fox), was discontinuous with the explosion. Moreover, the south tower was not even seen directly as it was blocked by the north tower. All in all, very suspicious footage

This is not evidence, but you don't need me to tell you that. So, your first point is that live footage (or perhaps the nature of the footage?) is "suspicious". Good start.

Quote:

2) the second shot of the south tower hit shown by CNN showed only an explosion, no plane. The area on the screen where the plane should have been was blocked by the CNN news "crawl". Also very suspicious footage.

And if the shot had been aimed perfectly at the impact site? Come on, i've seen that argument used for a few of the videos too.. yeesh.

Quote:

3) several eye-witnesses saw the south tower explode, and were in a location where they could have seen the plane, but didn't see a plane.

hundreds, perhaps thousands of eye-witnesses saw the south tower explode, and were in a location where they could have seen a plane and did see a plane.

Quote:

4) several eye-witnesses spoke of missiles or a missile hitting the south tower instead of a plane.

And others talked of military jets, passenger planes and even AA livery. I wonder if you can guess what the vast majority of people saw?

Quote:

5) the plane-shaped holes in the WTC towers (and in Shanksville and to a lesser degree the Pentagon) are not physically plausible for real plane crashes-- the holes look as though the perpetrators were simply trying to make it APPEAR as though planes crashed in the buildings and on the ground.

Turd sandwich. Again you try to draw a link between Shaksville, the Pentagon and the Twin towers. What you fail to realise is that this very link counters NPT. The simple fact that Shanksville and the pentagon are such obvious cover ups should be a clue...

Quote:

6) several videos of the south tower hit show the plane sliding into the tower without slowing, without exploding upon contact, without any part breaking off-- with even the freaking wingtips gliding through thick steel columns!

There isn't a single video showing this. What you have seen are heavily compressed videos, with multiple missing frames and severe interlacing and artefact problems. All that aside, the maths of the collision have been covered again and again, by government appointment, truthers, and critics - though not by NPT's. Nice.

Show me what a plane shaped hole in the Twin Towers should look like, because right now I only have one thing to go on.. and it's exactly the shape of a plane.

Quote:

7) there are many video anomalies in the videos of the second hit-- the plane is deformed, there are obvious "pods", there are conflicting plane paths between videos, the videos have anomalous, often dark, coloration, etc. This all casts doubt on a real plane being in the videos.

evidence for planes at the Pentagon and Shanksville is weak; people initially at both scenes said there was no evidence of a plane crash, etc.

On your first point: If these arguments were made based on high resolution footage you might have something, unfortunately they are not. I've watched the video's and I don't see conflicting flight paths.

On your second point: There you go, linking the Pentagon and Shanksville events to the Twin Towers.. What is that about?

Quote:

9) flight 11 and flight 77 officially did not take off according to the BTS database.

I haven't heard of this, I read a couple of articles documenting it and it's definitely an interesting point. However i'm at a loss as to what this actually means for NPT?

Quote:

10) no black boxes were found at ground zero (officially).

But they were found at the Pentagon and Shanksville.. Oh hang on..

Quote:

11) almost no plane parts were found in the WTC rubble that was SIFTED for human remains.

Wrong, there's photographic evidence of plenty of plane parts. You've seen the images yourself, so why lie?

Quote:

9/11 concepts that are consistent with the no-plane theory:

1) the lack of air defense is best explained by a lack of any real planes to intercept-- this would have been the best way to insure no awkward air force interception of a hijacked plane.

Except the aircraft were on radar and the subject of much radio chatter. The confusion was a result of the multiple 'fake blips' which were part of the drills that day. If they were using no planes, then why risk the damning coincidence of the drills? They were the straw which undoubtedly 'broke the camels back' for a lot of truthers.

Quote:

2) the big lie that no planes were used would be a very effective tool for insuring the truth never came out, as it would sound too crazy.

The truth of what? The truth that a few Neo-Cons and CIA big wigs planned and orchestrated attacks on American citizens? Thanks, but the standard 'truth' is doing that just fine.

Or perhaps they don't want us to know they can composite images on film, have holograms, missiles and total media dominance! Oh wait...

Quote:

3) if 9/11 was an inside set-up, not using planes is technically easier, in terms of not having to deal with moving large aircraft around and piloting them precisely and not having to deal with live hijacking situations-- they only needed to plant the plane meme and plant some parts.

Indeed. Except they also went through the trouble of doctoring countless private videos, silencing newscasters, film crews, editing teams, special effects artists, planting numerous fake witnesses, getting 10,000 gallons of fuel into two towers, rigging explosives which blast walls inward and vaporise fuel as it miraculously travels at 500 MPH through the tower and out the other side.

Yet all this pales in comparison to the utter * storm they would face if one, yes ONE person went to an uncontrolled media source, university professor, journalist etc with an unedited video which didn't show a plane where there patently should have been one.

Quote:

4) some plane parts laying in the street or on the ground seem implausible and appear to be planted-- but parts would not need to be planted if real planes were used, would they?

Who can tell? Not you or I, that's for sure. As for their placement seeming implausible, what would be a plausible configuration of plane parts? Right. No one knows, because we don't know what they hit inside the towers or what explosive forces acted on them to set their trajectory out the other side.

Quote:

5) there appear to be TOO many videos of the second hit. I have counted 30 of them and there may be more. This is of a highly transient event that could only be seen from certain angles and was completely UNEXPECTED (in principle that is!).

This is a goodie. So you think that perhaps the most famous tower in the world, having a gaping hole in the side and billowing smoke is NOT worth pointing a camera at?

Incidentally, this is also the cause of the, "they were shooting right where the second plane hit" argument used for a lot of other footage taken from the ground.. Notice what else is in centre screen in those videos? Oh yes, the first tower billowing smoke. Yet, when the camera perspective is from another highrise building, and a more level shot is available, you then complain that it DOESN'T show the impact of the second plane which hits half way down the tower. Stunning.

Quote:

6) videos of the second hit were played over and over and over on TV, as if they were trying to reinforce the plane meme.

No kidding? It's only the most incredible and shocking fireworks display to ever grace western civilization, and not a drop of blood visible. Why WOULDN'T you play the impacts at every possible opportunity. Even now I am still shocked and awe struck when I see these images. Not to be too crass, (that's for the news networks) the impacts are TV gold.

Quote:

7) it is unlikely amateur pilot terrorists could have piloted planes so effectively, but remote control does not make sense for how UA175 behaved in the videos, with the last minute turn right before hitting.

Fine before the comma, it's true that the attack took skill which was far beyond the pinup hijackers. However, I don't think anyone anywhere has said the flight path is impossible for hydraulic assisted remote operation. Till someone proves it's not possible, this isn't evidence. Again.

Quote:

the origin of most 2nd hit videos is very obscure-- but in some cases, they came from known computer animators.

Reference please? How many cases? I'm a computer animator so I might know one of these guys. It's a small world, after all.

THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic

Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009

Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 4:30 pm Post subject:

Read up on interlacing and artefact issues, these problems were not invented to explain the 'suspicious' footage of the planes hitting the towers - yet they are the CAUSE of 90% of the arguing points in the NPT arsenal. Ask yourself why NP theorists don't analyse high resolution footage from the day, like the NPT debunkers do Please post the link to the high resolution footage you refer to

seatnineb
Suspended

Joined: 10 Nov 2006
Posts: 10
Location: Cambridge

Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:01 pm Post subject:

9/11 maybe a case of art imitating art The meotorite from Armageddon and Flight 175 have a lot in common: 1)They both hit the South Tower 2)They both hit the south side of the South Tower 3)They both hit at just above the 2nd sky lobby 4)They both melt into the building What are the odds?! Armageddon(1998) 9/11(2001) Armageddon(1998) 9/11(2001)

Worried
Minor Poster

Joined: 12 Nov 2006
Posts: 13

Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:52 pm Post subject:

mason-free party wrote:

strange that you've only just joined today like many of the others who attack the no plane theory who are also newbies

Thanks for starting the thread, Major - as a newbie it was a little disheartening to find the nonsensical and divisive No Planes Theory at the top of the board - yet reading through the pages helped me differentiate between those members seeking Justice for mass murder, and those who would have 911 Truth twisted to some intellectual exercise.

Nothing I can say will make you doubt your own 'certainties' - such as that cited above.

I'm new to this site, but not new to 911 Truth. I don't know (or care) who you are, Major, but I have met 'your theory' and 'your like' many times before.

With all due respect your theory is nonsense; reiteration is not a conjuring act - repeatedly saying something 'is so' doesn't make it so.

THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic

Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009

Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:51 pm Post subject:

Worried wrote:

mason-free party wrote:

strange that you've only just joined today like many of the others who attack the no plane theory who are also newbies

Thanks for starting the thread, Major - as a newbie it was a little disheartening to find the nonsensical and divisive No Planes Theory at the top of the board - yet reading through the pages helped me differentiate between those members seeking Justice for mass murder, and those who would have 911 Truth twisted to some intellectual exercise.

Nothing I can say will make you doubt your own 'certainties' - such as that cited above.

I'm new to this site, but not new to 911 Truth. I don't know (or care) who you are, Major, but I have met 'your theory' and 'your like' many times
before.

With all due respect your theory is nonsense; reiteration is not a conjuring act - repeatedly saying something 'is so' doesn't make it so.

And slagging something off without addressing the evidence is a piss poor show

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:05 pm Post subject:

Worried wrote:

Hi Worried - I was also inspired to join by my alarm at what seemed at the time the growing ubiquitous of the NPT. It has its adherants, as does any theory but if it's any consolation, I've never seen any evidence about it that I found the least convincing either, no matter how many web sites are devoted to it.
But you'll find that while there is no shortage of supply in theories, the one that everybody is agreed on is the paucity of the Official Conspiracy Theory.
That's the important thing to remember.

THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic

Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009

Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:29 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

Worried wrote:

Why don't you and John White start a new section - The Fence Sitters?

Fallious
Moderate Poster

Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762

Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:49 pm Post subject:

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:

chek wrote:

Worried wrote:

Why don't you and John White start a new section - The Fence Sitters?

Do you ever stop to think about what you are saying?

John White
Site Admin

Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:51 am Post subject:

No. He doesn't. TWSU3 is the opposame of Anti-Sophist Now there's a scary thought! _________________ Free your Self and Free the World

wepmob2000
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter

Joined: 03 Aug 2006
Posts: 431
Location: North East England

Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 2:26 am Post subject:

John White wrote:

No. He doesn't. TWSU3 is the opposame of Anti-Sophist

Now there's a scary thought!

I have a theory that Ally and TWSU3 are one and the same, could Anti-Sophist be another of Ally-TWSU3's alter-egos?

I also have a theory that they are some kind of double agents, whenever I've posted this in the form of a direct question its remained unanswered!

Stefan
Banned
Banned

Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219

Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 10:27 pm Post subject: Re: Counter argument

Snowygrouch wrote:

Well I`m sorry people but your work and theories are utterly worthless.

You have been conned by a couple of very very badly put together websites (I note that you NEVER produce your own credible analysis but use reams of weblinks).

The theory is pitiful to anyone with a grounding in Materials science or mechanical engineering. Unluckily for you lot I have both.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Strength of structural steel used in perimeter columns = 551MPa or 551N/mm2

Number of columns sheared (WTC1) = 33

Cross sectional area of columns at impact height of planes = 16130mm2

Total cross sectional area of steel sheared by impact= 1,064,580mm2

Velocity of plane at impact=500mph or 222m/s

Mass of plane at impact = 145,000kg (100,000kg dry weight + 10,000 gallons fuel)

Energy of plane@ impact velocity = 4 Giga-Joules (4x10^9 joules)

If the plane is to bounce off the building it must decelerate to zero meters/second over a distance near zero. We shall use a very generous figure of 2 meters (the smaller the figure the greater the force expended), this allows the building to instantaiously move 2 meters at impact which is highly unrealistic. If an object were to bounce off the distance figure would be much closer to zero, giving many; many times the instantaionus force I use here.

1 Joule = Amount of energy needed to apply a force of 1 newton over a distance of 1m

4 GJ/2meters = 2 Giga Newton’s must be expended in doing so.

Stress = force/ area
= 2GN/ 1,064,580mm2
= 1868N/mm2

Thus in order to “bounce off” the side of the world trade centre the steel would have to be over 3.5 times stronger than the steel actually used.

The above analysis is naturally simplified a great deal as I don’t have sufficiently accurate computer models (or the time) to run a finite element analysis routine.

Hence I used extremely generous figures in favour of a “bounce off” scenario and still fell short of the required stress figures by a very considerable margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------

What follows are simulations of wing impact and engineering schematics of the fuel tank layouts in a 767-200.

Of course an EMPTY plane will not penetrate with anything like the effect it did. Trouble is it WASNT empty and had 10,000 gallons of fuel in, or about 40 tons of fuel if you prefer my mass.

This is a fact ignored by the patheticaly absurd attempts at a serious analysis on the NPT websites which normally consist of "aluminium is soft and steel is really hard so it COULDNT go through". B********S.

I`m bloody SICK of spending months doing serious research only to have my (and the efforts of others who are ACTUALLY SERIOUS about DOING someting) undermined by unresearched UNsubstanciated UNCALCULATED "net nonsense".

Snowygrouch,
Thanks for that, you continue to impress.

I had been curious about the no planes business, I think that your post answers all questions though.

Worried
Minor Poster

Joined: 12 Nov 2006
Posts: 13

Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 4:48 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

while there is no shortage of supply in theories, the one that everybody is agreed on is the paucity of the Official Conspiracy Theory.
That's the important thing to remember.

Exactly.

Divide and Conquer works well - but so does disengagement from fallacious 'debates'.

Woodee
Moderate Poster

Joined: 08 Sep 2006
Posts: 159

Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 6:08 pm Post subject:

mason-free party wrote:

...like many of the others who attack the no plane theory who are also newbies

nope

_________________

gordboy
Minor Poster

Joined: 07 Sep 2005
Posts: 18

Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:11 pm Post subject:

"Fallious" said : "This is not a logical step, as any truth critic will tell you the A = B, B = C therefore C = A is a highly dubious way to 'connect dots'. " Oh really ? Well when I did maths to university level that is precisely what you have to conclude. Perhaps logic and maths have degraded to the point of unintelligibilty. A = B B = C => A = C => C = A This is as watertight as it could be.

andrewwatson
Moderate Poster

Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 348
Location: Norfolk

Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 1:59 am Post subject:

John White wrote:

No. He doesn't. TWSU3 is the opposame of Anti-Sophist

Now there's a scary thought!

Not as scary as your avatar.

Display posts from previous:

	9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Page 2 of 6

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum