| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 11:26 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Ally wrote: | | telecasterisation wrote: | Okay, cartoons versus real world video.
I love the change of direction, you are a master of sidestepping.
Can you give me any idea of how many responses you plan to supply on this topic before we are off on another tangent?
One final point, you are prone to supplying anaked dat, in other words, you slap in a link with no explanation. A few pointers would be nice here.
Remember, only stuff you can back up from now on, not items from the The Wafflemeister's Encyclopedia Of Made Up Numpty Facts. |
aluminium planes wont penetrate steel reinforced structres regardless of their speed. |
How do you know?
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ally
Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 909
Location: banned
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | | Ally wrote: | | telecasterisation wrote: | Okay, cartoons versus real world video.
I love the change of direction, you are a master of sidestepping.
Can you give me any idea of how many responses you plan to supply on this topic before we are off on another tangent?
One final point, you are prone to supplying anaked dat, in other words, you slap in a link with no explanation. A few pointers would be nice here.
Remember, only stuff you can back up from now on, not items from the The Wafflemeister's Encyclopedia Of Made Up Numpty Facts. |
aluminium planes wont penetrate steel reinforced structres regardless of their speed. |
How do you know? |
What has more force, a pound of feathers travelling at 500 mph or a pound of steel?
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ally wrote: | | telecasterisation wrote: | | Ally wrote: | | telecasterisation wrote: | Okay, cartoons versus real world video.
I love the change of direction, you are a master of sidestepping.
Can you give me any idea of how many responses you plan to supply on this topic before we are off on another tangent?
One final point, you are prone to supplying anaked dat, in other words, you slap in a link with no explanation. A few pointers would be nice here.
Remember, only stuff you can back up from now on, not items from the The Wafflemeister's Encyclopedia Of Made Up Numpty Facts. |
aluminium planes wont penetrate steel reinforced structres regardless of their speed. |
How do you know? |
What has more force, a pound of feathers travelling at 500 mph or a pound of steel? |
Both equal, the inertia is identical.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ally
Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 909
Location: banned
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | | Ally wrote: | | telecasterisation wrote: | | Ally wrote: | | telecasterisation wrote: | Okay, cartoons versus real world video.
I love the change of direction, you are a master of sidestepping.
Can you give me any idea of how many responses you plan to supply on this topic before we are off on another tangent?
One final point, you are prone to supplying anaked dat, in other words, you slap in a link with no explanation. A few pointers would be nice here.
Remember, only stuff you can back up from now on, not items from the The Wafflemeister's Encyclopedia Of Made Up Numpty Facts. |
aluminium planes wont penetrate steel reinforced structres regardless of their speed. |
How do you know? |
What has more force, a pound of feathers travelling at 500 mph or a pound of steel? |
Both equal, the inertia is identical. |
It seems you've mixed up gravity with inertia.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 11:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
okay, I will view your evidence - simply supply.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
However you have yet to identify the shape of the feathers and steel.
Is the steel solid or a framework, are the feathers compacted?
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 12:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| prole art threat wrote: | | telecasterisation wrote: | | prole art threat wrote: | | Marky, the couple in the video claim to see a rocket. |
Are we watching the same piece of footage?
The initial claim at 00:24 is that is was a bomb – they then go on to speculate about other possible causes. Why would 'a bomb' be mentioned if they saw a rocket?
This is because at the distance they were from the WTC, the plane simply was too far away to see.
You simply make things up to suit. |
Listen you, refer to the footage I have posted links to that demonstate how two people with their eyes fixed on the North Tower DIDNT SEE A PLANE HIT THE SOUTH TOWER. |
after you stated in caps missile cloaked in hologram numerous times i thought i was getting somewhere to understand the npt arguements.
how ever the statement above now claims no planes they didnt see anything, so looks like you debunked you own theory, and thrown me back into confusion as to which you believe.
if you believe no planes then why tell me you believe missile cloaked in hologram? if you DO believe missile cloaked in hologram why would it not appear on the film? but more importantly what does the clips you mentioned prove to support missile cloaked in plane theory? why would the hologram of a plane simply dissapear when it suits?
Last edited by marky 54 on Thu Dec 28, 2006 12:14 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
prole art threat
Validated Poster
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 804
Location: London Town
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| prole art threat wrote: |
....as I have stated before it is quite possible that a hologram cannot be detected from all angles and distances, unlike a plane. The footage I have presented here totally adhere to this assertion. I will say it again, I believe missiles cloaked in holograms were used to thwack the twins. The fact that you have some people seeing them and others dont are validations of my theory. Unlike your real planes which, seemingly, disappear and randomly reappear and then proceed to smash through steel and out the other end like some Channel 5 sci fi film. |
_________________
'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wepmob2000
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 03 Aug 2006
Posts: 431
Location: North East England
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 1:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| prole art threat wrote: | | prole art threat wrote: |
....as I have stated before it is quite possible that a hologram cannot be detected from all angles and distances, unlike a plane. The footage I have presented here totally adhere to this assertion. I will say it again, I believe missiles cloaked in holograms were used to thwack the twins. The fact that you have some people seeing them and others dont are validations of my theory. Unlike your real planes which, seemingly, disappear and randomly reappear and then proceed to smash through steel and out the other end like some Channel 5 sci fi film. |
|
Is there evidence of such cloaking/holographic technology in existence? There's leakage on most DoD 'black' projects, so one would assume the same with this technology. What level of power consumption would be required to render a hologram opaque in bright autumn sunshine, logically you would assume this to be rather high? Could a Cruise missile cope with the extra weight and power consumption imposed by a hologram device? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 1:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wepmob2000 wrote: | | prole art threat wrote: | | prole art threat wrote: |
....as I have stated before it is quite possible that a hologram cannot be detected from all angles and distances, unlike a plane. The footage I have presented here totally adhere to this assertion. I will say it again, I believe missiles cloaked in holograms were used to thwack the twins. The fact that you have some people seeing them and others dont are validations of my theory. Unlike your real planes which, seemingly, disappear and randomly reappear and then proceed to smash through steel and out the other end like some Channel 5 sci fi film. |
|
Is there evidence of such cloaking/holographic technology in existence? There's leakage on most DoD 'black' projects, so one would assume the same with this technology. What level of power consumption would be required to render a hologram opaque in bright autumn sunshine, logically you would assume this to be rather high? Could a Cruise missile cope with the extra weight and power consumption imposed by a hologram device? |
Don't forget the sound! And the ability to cast holographic shadows... and the placing of shaped charges able to simulate plane impacts against the outside of the towers. And the jet fuel stored within the towers to generate the fireball. And the pre-placed debris to be forcibly ejected outwards. Etc etc etc
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 1:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ally wrote: | | telecasterisation wrote: | Okay, cartoons versus real world video.
I love the change of direction, you are a master of sidestepping.
Can you give me any idea of how many responses you plan to supply on this topic before we are off on another tangent?
One final point, you are prone to supplying anaked dat, in other words, you slap in a link with no explanation. A few pointers would be nice here.
Remember, only stuff you can back up from now on, not items from the The Wafflemeister's Encyclopedia Of Made Up Numpty Facts. |
aluminium planes wont penetrate steel reinforced structres regardless of their speed.
 |
We've had this quite a few times, but rather handily you yourself have provided the answer to the problem Ally
As we can see, the boiled egg shreds itself around the egg grater
In the same way, the larger surface area of the towers is the glass, not the steel...and so the majority of the surface being struck by the Plane offers significantly less resistance to the Planes continued forward momentum: this results in the plane shreding itself around the infrastructure as it impacts, and thus rips itself into fragments as momentum takes it forward into the tower's structure: exactly as modeled highly credibly, and as evidenced in the footage on the day
Easy as 
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| prole art threat wrote: | | prole art threat wrote: |
....as I have stated before it is quite possible that a hologram cannot be detected from all angles and distances, unlike a plane. The footage I have presented here totally adhere to this assertion. I will say it again, I believe missiles cloaked in holograms were used to thwack the twins. The fact that you have some people seeing them and others dont are validations of my theory. Unlike your real planes which, seemingly, disappear and randomly reappear and then proceed to smash through steel and out the other end like some Channel 5 sci fi film. |
|
Ah, the 'cover my back in case the hologram isn't seen' scenario.
You said earlier that using real planes was fraught with problems in case bits dropped into the street or simply missed the building completely. Now you say that 'it is quite possible that a hologram cannot be detected from all angles and distances'.
What an incredibly bizarre belief Prole - device a plan to fool the world but risk cameras from certain angles broadcasting visuals to the world that show missing wings or even worse - no plane at all.
You then say that the perps arranged for the deceit to continue to the point that they project an image of the plane's front section exiting the building having passed through a gap too narrow to accept it. They can devise complex holographic devices, put together a plan to essentially take over the world and forget to check the height of a 767?!
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | Ally wrote: | | telecasterisation wrote: | Okay, cartoons versus real world video.
I love the change of direction, you are a master of sidestepping.
Can you give me any idea of how many responses you plan to supply on this topic before we are off on another tangent?
One final point, you are prone to supplying anaked dat, in other words, you slap in a link with no explanation. A few pointers would be nice here.
Remember, only stuff you can back up from now on, not items from the The Wafflemeister's Encyclopedia Of Made Up Numpty Facts. |
aluminium planes wont penetrate steel reinforced structres regardless of their speed.
|
We've had this quite a few times, but rather handily you yourself have provided the answer to the problem Ally
As we can see, the boiled egg shreds itself around the egg grater
In the same way, the larger surface area of the towers is the glass, not the steel...and so the majority of the surface being struck by the Plane offers significantly less resistance to the Planes continued forward momentum: this results in the plane shreding itself around the infrastructure as it impacts, and thus rips itself into fragments as momentum takes it forward into the tower's structure: exactly as modeled highly credibly, and as evidenced in the footage on the day
Easy as |
Comparing an egg slicer to the outer structure of the WTC is ridiculous
they are not comparable - IF anyone can superimpose a plane against the above steel structure you will realise how silly your theory is
Last edited by THETRUTHWILLSETU3 on Thu Dec 28, 2006 11:07 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 11:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3;
| Quote: | | Comparing an egg slicer to the outer structure of the WTC is ridiculous they are not comparable |
Really? You guys keep saying the plane is all squashy due to it being aluminium and the WTC steel is like Superman strong. The comparison is stonking and one you will relate to.
We could use the chip shredder I used in another thread if that is more comfortable for you?
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
prole art threat
Validated Poster
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 804
Location: London Town
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 12:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | | John White wrote: | | Ally wrote: | | telecasterisation wrote: | Okay, cartoons versus real world video.
I love the change of direction, you are a master of sidestepping.
Can you give me any idea of how many responses you plan to supply on this topic before we are off on another tangent?
One final point, you are prone to supplying anaked dat, in other words, you slap in a link with no explanation. A few pointers would be nice here.
Remember, only stuff you can back up from now on, not items from the The Wafflemeister's Encyclopedia Of Made Up Numpty Facts. |
aluminium planes wont penetrate steel reinforced structres regardless of their speed.
|
We've had this quite a few times, but rather handily you yourself have provided the answer to the problem Ally
As we can see, the boiled egg shreds itself around the egg grater
In the same way, the larger surface area of the towers is the glass, not the steel...and so the majority of the surface being struck by the Plane offers significantly less resistance to the Planes continued forward momentum: this results in the plane shreding itself around the infrastructure as it impacts, and thus rips itself into fragments as momentum takes it forward into the tower's structure: exactly as modeled highly credibly, and as evidenced in the footage on the day
Easy as |
Comparing an egg slicer to the outer structure of the WTC is ridiculous
they are not comparable - IF anyone can superimpose a plane against the above steel structure you will realise how silly your theory is |
Generally I agree TWSU3, but being as Ally had done so I thought it best to use his own example
(do you want to let him know his theory is silly?)
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kc
Moderate Poster
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 359
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Just a thought, but if the plane was made of this flimsy aluminium, how did its wings keep hold of enourmous turbojet fan engines? Surely they would have just ripped themselves off the wings if they were so flimsy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | | John White wrote: | | Ally wrote: | | telecasterisation wrote: | Okay, cartoons versus real world video.
I love the change of direction, you are a master of sidestepping.
Can you give me any idea of how many responses you plan to supply on this topic before we are off on another tangent?
One final point, you are prone to supplying anaked dat, in other words, you slap in a link with no explanation. A few pointers would be nice here.
Remember, only stuff you can back up from now on, not items from the The Wafflemeister's Encyclopedia Of Made Up Numpty Facts. |
aluminium planes wont penetrate steel reinforced structres regardless of their speed.
|
We've had this quite a few times, but rather handily you yourself have provided the answer to the problem Ally
As we can see, the boiled egg shreds itself around the egg grater
In the same way, the larger surface area of the towers is the glass, not the steel...and so the majority of the surface being struck by the Plane offers significantly less resistance to the Planes continued forward momentum: this results in the plane shreding itself around the infrastructure as it impacts, and thus rips itself into fragments as momentum takes it forward into the tower's structure: exactly as modeled highly credibly, and as evidenced in the footage on the day
Easy as |
Comparing an egg slicer to the outer structure of the WTC is ridiculous
they are not comparable - IF anyone can superimpose a plane against the above steel structure you will realise how silly your theory is |
Generally I agree TWSU3, but being as Ally had done so I thought it best to use his own example
(do you want to let him know his theory is silly?) |
Ok use your imagination here.
For arguments sake the WTC is under construction as shown - the plane crashes into it ------- there is no way it would cut through that structure - the wings would be sheared and large amounts of plane would bounce off |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | For arguments sake the WTC is under construction as shown - the plane crashes into it ------- there is no way it would cut through that structure - the wings would be sheared and large amounts of plane would bounce off |
Really?
I can't see any particular value in "debating" that with you TWSU3: at least, untill you can show the potential problems you have to get past to make your interpretation viable
So I shall let the image speak for itself
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kc
Moderate Poster
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 359
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| So the planes made of rubber now? Must be like all those cars ram raiders use, you know, the way they bounce of shop pillars and plate glass windows instead of crashing through them.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote;
| Quote: | | For arguments sake the WTC is under construction as shown - the plane crashes into it ------- there is no way it would cut through that structure - the wings would be sheared and large amounts of plane would bounce off |
There has never been the slightest suggestion that the aircraft 'cut' through the pillars. The plane did not carry any cutting gear, the word you keep avoiding using is 'smash'. There was @ 100 tons+ of inertia all married up into a perfectly streamlined aerodynamic shape. This was travelling at @ 450mph.
Explain why, even if the pillars were not broken, the body off the aircraft would not pass through the gaps between pillars and the rest would 'bounce off'? What precisely is the basis for this - what is your source and frame of reference, apart from Road Runner cartoons, how are you making this determination?
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote;
| Quote: | | For arguments sake the WTC is under construction as shown - the plane crashes into it ------- there is no way it would cut through that structure - the wings would be sheared and large amounts of plane would bounce off |
There has never been the slightest suggestion that the aircraft 'cut' through the pillars. The plane did not carry any cutting gear, the word you keep avoiding using is 'smash'. There was @ 100 tons+ of inertia all married up into a perfectly streamlined aerodynamic shape. This was travelling at @ 450mph.
Explain why, even if the pillars were not broken, the body off the aircraft would not pass through the gaps between pillars and the rest would 'bounce off'? What precisely is the basis for this - what is your source and frame of reference, apart from Road Runner cartoons, how are you making this determination? |
On all the official footage there is nothing bouncing of the building - the wings should have sheared off - they did not |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kc
Moderate Poster
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 359
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 1:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | the wings should have sheared off |
Why? The wings had big engines built into them. They were then bolted on to a frame so securely, they would stay in place after thousands of hours of fule burning thrust was applied whilst carrying hundreds of tons of baggage and people.
Quick physics test - get one of those solid samsonite suitcases. Fit as many clothes as you can into it. Swing it as hard as you can into your living room wall. Look at the dint it makes in the plaster and/or mortar. Multiply the force by thousands. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 2:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Better still - pack the same case. Invite Prole around. Carry out the same test but on his head instead of the wall. Now check the dent - if it just bounces off, what have you lost?
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As for the wings shearing off;
People keep saying 'Aluminium plane, steel building'. This is not true, the building was a steel framework, comprising a mesh - it was not solid steel - totally misleading.
There was a wide entry point between each support which would allow the enormous weight of each wing to easily enter. There would be absolutely no reason for the wings to sheer off and lose their impetus and 'bounce off'.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | | For arguments sake the WTC is under construction as shown - the plane crashes into it ------- there is no way it would cut through that structure - the wings would be sheared and large amounts of plane would bounce off |
If your simple interpretation of aluminium vs steel is correct, then a soft lead bullet can never penetrate a steel can.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Snowygrouch
Validated Poster
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 628
Location: Oxford
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why this stuff is even being debated is quite beyond me.
I`ve already posted a fairly comprehensive stress calculation together with schematics of the fuel tank layout of a 767 that clearly demonstrate that the energy is by a factor of several times sufficeint to shear the steel columns.
But what do stupid stress calculations mean right? After all its only equations derived by hundreds of years of human knowledge and evolution by REAL MORONS like Isaac Newton and the like.
But ignore Newton; he's probably a shill right!
*groan*
_________________
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist
President Eisenhower 1961 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Snowygrouch wrote: | Why this stuff is even being debated is quite beyond me.
I`ve already posted a fairly comprehensive stress calculation together with schematics of the fuel tank layout of a 767 that clearly demonstrate that the energy is by a factor of several times sufficeint to shear the steel columns.
But what do stupid stress calculations mean right? After all its only equations derived by hundreds of years of human knowledge and evolution by REAL MORONS like Isaac Newton and the like.
But ignore Newton; he's probably a shill right!
*groan* |
Whilst I am agreeing with you - you can't present comprehensive stress calculations and expect people to;
1) Understand them without studying the subject.
2) Expect people to accept they are accurate without studying the subject.
Your calculations may well prove conclusively what happened on the day, but surely you can see they mean little to most people? Consequently, this will be discussed ad infinitum on a different level using a pound of feathers and a boiled egg.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | | Snowygrouch wrote: | Why this stuff is even being debated is quite beyond me.
I`ve already posted a fairly comprehensive stress calculation together with schematics of the fuel tank layout of a 767 that clearly demonstrate that the energy is by a factor of several times sufficeint to shear the steel columns.
But what do stupid stress calculations mean right? After all its only equations derived by hundreds of years of human knowledge and evolution by REAL MORONS like Isaac Newton and the like.
But ignore Newton; he's probably a shill right!
*groan* |
Whilst I am agreeing with you - you can't present comprehensive stress calculations and expect people to;
1) Understand them without studying the subject.
2) Expect people to accept they are accurate without studying the subject.
Your calculations may well prove conclusively what happened on the day, but surely you can see they mean little to most people? Consequently, this will be discussed ad infinitum on a different level using a pound of feathers and a boiled egg. |
Even if Snowy's calculation is correct (and I very much doubt it is - does it allow for an impact surface of different materials with different strengths and does it take into account the angle of approach) it only would prove what a real plane would do to the building - there was no plane so the calculation is redundant |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3;
| Quote: | | Even if Snowy's calculation is correct (and I very much doubt it is - does it allow for an impact surface of different materials with different strengths and does it take into account the angle of approach) it only would prove what a real plane would do to the building - there was no plane so the calculation is redundant |
But surely you would still expect the holographic wings to sheer off?
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
