| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 9:56 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| genghis6199 wrote: | nuh kinda. white elephant flyby is a different deal. it was either controlling the attacks or there to give the 'panicked memory' of a plane, so the media could bolt it together for them all. i do think something hit the towers.
the black blob mas a dirty big black ops object. it had a mini nuke in it.
it flew straight. level to the ground. there are shots where the plaane travels dead horizintal.
i think they are real.
the divebombers and black helicopter sillouhettes are nonsense. |
OK, right i think i'm getting the hang of this
Right, what I'd like to find out next is: what image of a plane hitting the tower would you consider to be a quintisential fake: that is the best possible image to look at to observe that it is faked, to show the TV fakery case
And how have you identified that the image is faked?
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
genghis6199
New Poster
Joined: 04 Nov 2007
Posts: 8
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
evan fairbanks, luc corchesne, jennifer spell.
the plane ,melts into the building. it does not slow down, it smashes into the building for a total 156 feet, but does not get one scratch, not a wrinkle, but somehow manages to go through, the building seems untouched, doesn't even have a hole, then it has two small holes and explodes.
people have forgotton what a real crash looks like.
like the boeing engineer says:
'planes don't melt into steel and concrete buildings they crash against them"
to believe in planes you must believe
the first and third of newtons laws were comprehensively ignored on 911.
OR.... the videos are fake.
_________________
no engine blocks were destroyed on 911. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Roadrunner
Once again you have a golden opportunity to convince people of your theories - as you have just made several claims which you also say you have evidence to prove, so perhaps you could support them with said evidence and the conversation can actually start going somewhere:
1) Please link for us the testimony of the actor, so that we can confirm he has retracted (I believe you - but we want this all presented in an evidential manner) - and more importantly hear what he claims his motives were - i.e. getting his face on TV perhaps because he was an actor - or whether he admits to being part of a media fakery campaign to cover up a no-planes plot.
2) In terms of us knowing as a fact that the planes did not fly on that day - I don't believe we have established this yet - could you present the full body of evidence for this please? You said yesterday that the "official position" of American Airlines was that they didn't fly - have you contacted them by phone to make sure this really is their official position yet? If not could you do so and let us know what they say. If it can be established that both flights did not fly, it is of course equally useful to all views of 9/11 - not just NPT - however I am not convinced it will.
3) You claim we have strong evidence for the taping off of the areas of NY the debris from the planes was found in. Can you present us this strong evidence so we can judge its validity for ourselves please?
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------
genghis6199
| Quote: | so i registered to talk to u guys jennifer said
that somewhere in here there might be someone worth salvaging, so i'll give it a go.
my synicism, isn't all fair as i've had a gutfull of forum wars as you might have guessed.
so i'll try and give u guys a quick answer to everything i see here
and get on my way. i'll come back and see if there's anything worth responding to ,
debate is not a problem. PEOPLE'S ATTITUDE SOMETIMES IS. |
I completely agree. I have said many times that this no plane issue could be a genuine debate if posters like Fred not launched onto this forum with the intent of attacking and insulting everyone who disagreed with him, or even asked him simple questions, several other posters have continued in the same vein, throwing mud and making accusations that anyone who didn't believe them were cointelpro.
Sadly this has left legacy of distrust for posters at the 9/11 Research forum and Killtown forum, many who have followed in Fred's footsteps and some who have probably tried to be polite but are suffering for the sins of the father.
Here's hoping that you can lead this debate into a civilised area, where our questions about NPT will be answered with evidence, not with insults or by simply being ignored.
Best of luck to you.
| Quote: | firstly pepe. you are disgusting individual.
does everyone here know that you constantly email jennifer
begging for her phone number?.
then you come here and act like shes' scum ?.
and ridicule her?.
you should take a chill bro and think about your
attitude to the human race before you worry too much
about 911. |
Pepe's childish threats had no place here, he has now been ejected.
| Quote: | john white, your first question is half valid.
'if they had one still or video yadda yadda'
MEDIA CONTROL. you are ignoring the very cornerstone
of the idea. lots of videos showed no plane,
but they were handed to the media [umm hello].
at which point the men in black would have seen it first.
planes added in, or they were thrown in the bin.
or you could have read my post that jennifer quoted where i state |
This is an interesting claim - that lots of amateur camera owners actually are out there demanding people acknowledge that their videos showed explosions and not planes, while the world ignores them.
Could you list them please?
If the amateur footage we have was infact, to start with, no planes footage - where are the cries of dismay from those people who taped them?
I remember NPT/Fakery proponents claiming Fairbanks was stating this - when in fact he was saying it "looked unreal" WHEN HE FILMED IT not that what the authorities did to his film was to present something unreal.
So please, do bring us the names of all of the recorders of no planes footage currently campaigning around the fact that their videos were doctored.
| Quote: | "we don't all believe they are all fake"
because i actually believe some are real. |
Great!
I've actually asked this question in the "I'm No Troll" thread and so far had no answers -
What I was looking for was a simple run down of what was faked and what wasn't -
For example - a lot of you believe not just planes were inserted but entire sky lines and buildings
at the same time, when you see something in a video you want to be there (such as a helicopter you can claim is a missile) then the video is definitely real.
I'm not aiming any of this at you personally, but since you seem to be a NPT/Fakery proponent who is happy to actually stand behind his claims rather than run away when questions are asked, maybe you'd like to answer?
| Quote: | but this is where after reading this thread i really don't think you guys
are interested in discussing it. |
REALLY? Take a second look - posts from several posters here have made every attempt to present lucid counter points to the NPT/Fakery scenario - this is where a debate should start.
A problem, a recurring problem, I have found with internet chat rooms in general is that no one seems to understand what a debate actually is -
For a start it requires more than one view point - the audience for both sides are those reading it - in some rare cases you may win over the person you are debating but that is not the point - the point is to show that your viewpoint holds up against interrogation and win over the people observing the debate.
A lot of NPT/Fakery people who have come here have made a few claims, and then when other have challenged the claim they have said this makes them "trolls" and they didn't debate with "trolls" - well if the definition of a "troll" is someone with an opposing opinion - how can a debate ever happen?
I hope you don't fall into this trap as well.
| Quote: | you guys seem to be asking the same banal loaded debate team questions that
can't be aimed at true research. i have 300 videos on you toob guys.
my ideas are well laid out. |
Such as?
The questions we ask are the natural questions that arise from the things you are proposing - failure to answer them only fuels suspicion that you aren't serious about your ideas and are just trying to cause division.
I'm not aiming that at you - just letting you know what the general perception is.
Now you have 300 YT videos. Well done. Doesn't mean a whole lot to me to be honest with you, unless you are willing to counter criticisms aimed at the points you make in them and prove them to be valid.
I could post a thousand videos claiming the moon is made of cheese - the point wouldn't get more valid with each video I posted.
| Quote: | if you want to look at them and debate some of the more finite issues i'd be happy to.
but you guys are still asking some really naive broad questions
as if the media wouldn't lie to you.
that kind of thinking i thought was left behind long ago.
and it is not debate worthy, for my part. |
No ones saying the media won't lie to us - we all know they will - we are looking for some evidence behind the claims that they have deceived us in this case in the way you describe.
You talk about broad statements….
| Quote: | | but to be honest guys it's really hard to find a serious question in here. |
Non-serious questions should be even easier to answer.
I've already given you one question above - which originators of the amateur footage are claiming that planes were superimposed onto it - a claim you have made.
Here's another one for you
1)a) Do you claim that a plane cannot penetrate a steel framed building?
b) If yes, then how do you square this claim with the fact that exactly this occurred at the Empire State Building which was also clad in stone?
If that's not a serious question - bat it away and we'll get on to something meatier.
| Quote: | i'm happy to debate it, but after dealing with so many small minded people
for 18 months my attention span for fools is quite thin.
i totally accept that you might not believe the same things as me, that's cool.
i don't think less of you and hope that one day you will see what we are saying.
but until then i wish you well,
and hope that the current hate you guys have towards us chills out soon
it's getting kinda old. we're taken seriously now.
peace. |
You are?
Where?
As far as I know this is the last remaining major 911 truth site which doesn't ban 9/11Researchers/Killtown Forum people from posting - and none of you seem to want to do anything here but call everyone shills and trolls.
You claim you are different - great - good to have you here. Look through the 9/11 controversies board and attend to some of the dozens of ignored questions your partners in theory refuse to acknowledge.
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| genghis6199 wrote: | evan fairbanks, luc corchesne, jennifer spell.
the plane ,melts into the building. it does not slow down, it smashes into the building for a total 156 feet, but does not get one scratch, not a wrinkle, but somehow manages to go through, the building seems untouched, doesn't even have a hole, then it has two small holes and explodes. |
Firstly, the plane doesn't 'melt' into the building - that's an illusion caused by lo-res video.
The definition of the video is so poor that even the column and window layout is blurred to grayed out mush, so we know the resolution is not detecting objects under 14 inches in size at least.
Now as a matter of fact Greg Jenkins has calculated the plane does slow down, but to me it's imperceptible. What is equally credible is that as in the Skandia Phantom reactor wall crash test, the plane doesn't wrinkle or buckle and the tail keeps on moving forward as if nothing was happening up front.
You may recall if you've seen it, that the Phantom grinds itself to confetti in that test vid, and as it's going up against a solid concrete wall, the confetti gets blown back.
In the case of the WTC the confetti from the B767 enters the building through the smashed panel sections and obviously the window areas.
The video representations of the holes are hardly trustworthy due to the lo-resolution which is what leads to the more credulous of you "researchers" to claim that the building miraculously 'healed' itself. You have to look at the hi res stills to see the actual damage as in this one:
| genghis6199 wrote: | | people have forgotton what a real crash looks like. |
Like anyone who would attempt to mislead people with repetetive car crashing apple videos that are somehow supposed to represent hi-speed airliner crashing oranges you mean?
| genghis6199 wrote: | like the boeing engineer says:
'planes don't melt into steel and concrete buildings they crash against them". |
Ah - that'd be the same Boeing software engineer who's been telling you that the plane would shake itself to pieces at 220mph when the maximum gear down speed for a B767 according to the pilots notes is 270kts (319mph). I'd suggest you check with a proper aero engineer next time, not a keyboard engineer.
| genghis6199 wrote: | to believe in planes you must believe
the first and third of newtons laws were comprehensively ignored on 911.
OR.... the videos are fake. |
Or, maybe instead you can more easily believe that some people just don't know/talk hogwash/are disinfo/easily convinced/deceived/whatever and expect their hand waving and baseless pronouncements to be taken seriously.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| genghis6199 wrote: | | even chorused his mysogeny with true red[blooded?] spirit |
I would like you to point out where I (or Chek) have been misogynistic. I notice I made a joke based on Marky saying he pretended to be female, but I personally would say it's stretching it somewhat to even call it sexist, let alone 'woman hating'.
| the champ wrote: | | Did you notice that all the trolls practically defended Pepe? |
I certainly noticed how much you milked it. Unfortunately, he rather idiotically played right into your greasy little hands.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jomper
Validated Poster
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 99
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Roadrunner wrote: | Hi there Jomper,
I am a voice of the public. And so are you. |
Hi Roadrunner.
We are voices but I am not the voice of the public. However, since you said:
| Roadrunner wrote: | | You really don't understand, do you, why the public so strongly disagrees with your circular arguments? |
I suggest "the public" at this time would strongly disagree with the NPT idea and would say the argument for it is circular. It would be easier to argue that the idea has been manufactured by the thought police to make me, "the public", think you're crazy for asking questions about 9/11.
| genghis6199 wrote: | jumper - the wreckage. the stories. if my count is correct now,
i have talked to 18 000 people who were in the southe tower
when the plane hit, 56 000 who saw flight 75 with THEIR OWN EYES ,
865 000 who knoe someone who saw it,
789 000 876 people who say their aunt saw it,
300 987 678 987 who say they heard there was wreckage in the street. |
Right, some of them are lying, so not a single one could possibly be telling the truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jomper wrote: | | Roadrunner wrote: | Hi there Jomper,
I am a voice of the public. And so are you. |
Hi Roadrunner.
We are voices but I am not the voice of the public. However, since you said:
| Roadrunner wrote: | | You really don't understand, do you, why the public so strongly disagrees with your circular arguments? |
I suggest "the public" at this time would strongly disagree with the NPT idea and would say the argument for it is circular. It would be easier to argue that the idea has been manufactured by the thought police to make me, "the public", think you're crazy for asking questions about 9/11.
| genghis6199 wrote: | jumper - the wreckage. the stories. if my count is correct now,
i have talked to 18 000 people who were in the southe tower
when the plane hit, 56 000 who saw flight 75 with THEIR OWN EYES ,
865 000 who knoe someone who saw it,
789 000 876 people who say their aunt saw it,
300 987 678 987 who say they heard there was wreckage in the street. |
Right, some of them are lying, so not a single one could possibly be telling the truth. |
Being in denial that reality, in the end, is ALL THEY'VE GOT to keep their cult alive.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roadrunner
Moderate Poster
Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Posts: 200
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Let's face it - everyone in the entire world saw the plane hit the South Tower live, right - minus the actual presenters of the television pictures. Right ? So that's global population minus 5.
Are we now agreed about this ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
if you can prove where the news presenters were looking at the time.
if my attention during the event had been on something else im pretty sure i would of missed the impact live to.
nobody knew a second plane was going to hit so nobody had any reasons to keep their eyes glued on the screen at all moments. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
genghis6199
New Poster
Joined: 04 Nov 2007
Posts: 8
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 5:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
wt?.
low resolution video stops the building from looking like it's being caved in by a plane?. compression hid the tail not falling off?. compression made it look like it didn't slow down ?.
this was just the sort of fluff i expected. i think jennifer is wrong, there's no one worth salvaging here.
cathchyas
_________________
no engine blocks were destroyed on 911. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TmcMistress
Mind Gamer
Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 392
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Roadrunner wrote: | Let's face it - everyone in the entire world saw the plane hit the South Tower live, right - minus the actual presenters of the television pictures. Right ? So that's global population minus 5.
Are we now agreed about this ? |
Indub, you do realize tv presenters aren't normally looking at live camera feeds, yes?
_________________
"What about a dance club that only let in deaf people? It would really only need flashing lights, so they'd save a lot of money on music." - Dresden Codak |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jomper
Validated Poster
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 99
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| genghis6199 wrote: | | low resolution video stops the building from looking like it's being caved in by a plane?. compression hid the tail not falling off?. compression made it look like it didn't slow down ?. |
Proof that you're looking at an "authentically faked" video and not some deliberately bad job designed to make you run around in circles about nonsense? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| genghis6199 wrote: | Rather like the champ, I am in actuality totally unable to defend my assertions because they are bobbins. Whereas the champ is strangely obsessed with taking control of this forum and thus hangs around calling people trolls to compensate for his total inability to form rational arguments, I only came here to point out how many videos I have on youtube. If you're going to ask me actual questions about my nonsense theories, I'm just going to pretend I'm above it all and it's not worth my time. I mean, you've seen my films, right? It should be obvious to anyone I'm just having a laugh.
cathchyas
|
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| genghis6199 wrote: | wt?.
low resolution video stops the building from looking like it's being caved in by a plane?. compression hid the tail not falling off?. compression made it look like it didn't slow down ?.
this was just the sort of fluff i expected. i think jennifer is wrong, there's no one worth salvaging here.
cathchyas |
bye byyyyeeeeeee............
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FOr49QNqds |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
don't forget that our friend genghis is somebody who can't even understand this:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=11693
and I'm not sure how he expects anyone with a functioning brain to take him seriously, when comprehending something that a child could understand is apparently beyond the scope of his "intellect". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roadrunner
Moderate Poster
Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Posts: 200
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| There are some very juicy examples of blatant 9/11 media fakery in the pipeline which will be posted online very soon. Hope you guys polish your spectacles because they're rather special. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Roadrunner wrote: | | There are some very juicy examples of blatant 9/11 media fakery in the pipeline which will be posted online very soon. Hope you guys polish your spectacles because they're rather special. |
No they are not.
They are the same old pieces of video that have been circulating since day one.
Unless you mean you fraudsters have been busy forging new versions of the same old stuff.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us.
Last edited by chek on Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:56 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| genghis6199 wrote: | wt?.
low resolution video stops the building from looking like it's being caved in by a plane?. compression hid the tail not falling off?. compression made it look like it didn't slow down ?.
this was just the sort of fluff i expected. i think jennifer is wrong, there's no one worth salvaging here.
cathchyas |
Your level of comprehension and avoidance was everything I expected.
Thanks for not disappointing.
Otherwise the consequences could have been serious: I bet the dashboard of your car feels browbeaten enough already.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
But but but.... Ghengis is leaving? NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
And to think, if he had stayed, we could all of had our chance of heaven by learning to agree with Jennifer!
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Good to see the regulars posting here who still contend that a hollow tube made of light materials can crash through several steel girders. (a la Purdue Univeristy "cartoon physics" - yes they made a cartoon about it and called it an "accurate simulation" I love the bit where the wing edge slices through a steel girder - it's a classic!)
These super-strong planes even have super strong incombustible rubber tires that survive the "shredding process".
So do the planes shred? Or are they strong?
Empire state was brick, not steel framed. Anyone have a clear pic of the empire state hole (not the one looking down to the ground as we can't easily see the size of the hole).
Who still thinks a 0.44 magnum bullet, denser and travelling faster than a boeing can cut through a steel girder?
Or do you wanna talk about karate chops and tornados again?
I'll leave you to the insults anyway. I'll stick to the basic physical points of evidence and behaviour of materials, thanks!
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | | Good to see the regulars posting here who still contend that a hollow tube made of light materials can crash through several steel girders. (a la Purdue Univeristy "cartoon physics" - yes they made a cartoon about it and called it an "accurate simulation" I love the bit where the wing edge slices through a steel girder - it's a classic!) |
I can't recall anyone credible in the Truther camp who takes the Purdue simulation seriously. The column impact areas are all wrong anyway.
But of course Andrew and his NPT'ers do - if only to use as a straw man.
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | | These super-strong planes even have super strong incombustible rubber tires that survive the "shredding process". |
Looks like some did and some didn't - unless you are an evidence-free believer in covert gangs roaming the streets dropping off 'planted parts' in roughly the area and direction the impacts are shown to spread them
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | | So do the planes shred? Or are they strong? |
Another straw man! Mutual destruction of airframe and facade at impact rather than 'either/or' seems to fit the facts to me.
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | | Empire state was brick, not steel framed. |
That is so easily checkable you must be feeling desperate Andrew.
"Steel frame, stone cladding" http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Empire_State_Building.html
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | | Anyone have a clear pic of the empire state hole (not the one looking down to the ground as we can't easily see the size of the hole). |
Nope.
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | | Who still thinks a 0.44 magnum bullet, denser and travelling faster than a boeing can cut through a steel girder? |
Is this how you impress the intellectuals like Prole Art and Mason Free with your pseudo science?
Ok - lets take the 180gr bullet - the heaviest the .357 can fire.
At an exit the barrel speed of 1060fps it achieves a kinetic energy 448.99ft/lbs of force - or 608 joules - or 0.6KJ.
Which even you must agree is somewhat less than the 3,658,000 KJ of a Big Boeing impacting the South Tower.
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | | Or do you wanna talk about karate chops and tornados again? I'll leave you to the insults anyway. I'll stick to the basic physical points of evidence and behaviour of materials, thanks! |
What wonderful irony you have Andrew.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | Good to see the regulars posting here who still contend that a hollow tube made of light materials can crash through several steel girders. (a la Purdue Univeristy "cartoon physics" - yes they made a cartoon about it and called it an "accurate simulation" I love the bit where the wing edge slices through a steel girder - it's a classic!)
These super-strong planes even have super strong incombustible rubber tires that survive the "shredding process".
So do the planes shred? Or are they strong?
Empire state was brick, not steel framed. Anyone have a clear pic of the empire state hole (not the one looking down to the ground as we can't easily see the size of the hole).
Who still thinks a 0.44 magnum bullet, denser and travelling faster than a boeing can cut through a steel girder?
Or do you wanna talk about karate chops and tornados again?
I'll leave you to the insults anyway. I'll stick to the basic physical points of evidence and behaviour of materials, thanks! |
You do pick the threads to bump Andrew!
And your right, you do stick to the basic points:
As in: you make a basic point, and then run away rather than engaqge in debate which will demonstrate how "basic" your point is
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | hollow tube made of light materials |
or do you mean made from the lightest materials possible?
they don't exactly get airborne on lawn mower engines you know, claiming a passenger jet has "light" materials is somewhat misleading, i think you meant they are built with the lightest materials possible whilst still maintaining enough strenght to fly in high winds/storms and land as well as carry passengers/luggage and cargo from A to B plus weight of the fuel etc.
how many steel girders do you need to reach the same weight as a fully loaded passenger jet or compare to an empty one if you like?
would a steel girder moving at high speed dislodge other girders and enter the towers? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 12:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | I'll stick to the basic physical points of evidence and behaviour of materials, thanks!
|
IMO i think you put to much emphasis on material reaction and you simplify it to much to almost a rock paper scissors level.
aliminium defeated by steel.
hollow tube defeated by steel.
light materials defeated by steel.
etc etc.
i don't think you take into account momentum/weight/design of the building.
steel sections bolted and welded together, designed to take a vertical load NOT a horizontal load plus the momentum was all in ONE direction. any chance steel sections could of been pushed by brute force inward?
nah its bizarre to think is'nt it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tamborine man
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 74
Location: Qld. Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 11:36 am Post subject: The woman! |
|
|
Something annoys me.
Looking at the woman in the impact hole, whom I imagine to be around
5'7" or 1750mm high, and assume that where she stand must be the hole
made by the port side engine, something feels wrong.
The sharp cut in the outer cladding just above her head sloping down
away from her left side (as we watch her), must have been made by the
left wing, but where is the impact of the engine then?
The engine is about 9 feet in diameter or ca 2800mm. It hangs under the
wing. But the hole to the left and above the woman would make the
engine protrude over and quite above the top part of the wing.
The bottom part of the engine would therefore have impacted the facade
no less than 3' below where the woman stands, but there's no
indication that this ever happened!!
OK, I might be missing something here, but it bothers me I can't yet
see it!
Anyone care to put me at ease, please?
Cheers
_________________
What IS can never die |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 8:06 pm Post subject: Re: The woman! |
|
|
Has this question been answered already ?
| Tamborine man wrote: | Something annoys me.
Looking at the woman in the impact hole, whom I imagine to be around
5'7" or 1750mm high, and assume that where she stand must be the hole
made by the port side engine, something feels wrong.
The sharp cut in the outer cladding just above her head sloping down
away from her left side (as we watch her), must have been made by the
left wing, but where is the impact of the engine then?
The engine is about 9 feet in diameter or ca 2800mm. It hangs under the
wing. But the hole to the left and above the woman would make the
engine protrude over and quite above the top part of the wing.
The bottom part of the engine would therefore have impacted the facade
no less than 3' below where the woman stands, but there's no
indication that this ever happened!!
OK, I might be missing something here, but it bothers me I can't yet
see it!
Anyone care to put me at ease, please?
Cheers |
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Has this question been answered already ? |
im not sure. but even if it has not......
| Quote: | and assume that where she stand must be the hole
made by the port side engine |
| Quote: | whom I imagine to be around
5'7" or 1750mm high |
these two points are assumptions to start with, we are being asked to assume things to reach a conclusion.
plus i aint seeing anything that indicates what is being refered to, in this case a photo pointing the parts that seem wrong would help, as it's just not clear what the rest is going on about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think the photograph is a little way back on this page marky
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark Gobell wrote: | | I think the photograph is a little way back on this page marky |
thanks for pointing the photo out, not sure why i missed it.
ok "assuming" the engine hit where he says, and the fact we have a estimated height(of a person) to measure against an engine giving us an idea of how big the engine impact hole should be, he could be right, but i cannot say with any degree of certainty, due to the photo not quite being straight on, but it does appear at first glance the hole where you'd expect the engine to of entered is small or the enigne is partially above the wing, but would it appear differently with a head on view?
the angle on the photo in question is a little lower down and to the right.
also there is a presumption on what plane hit, if you can find one image with clear markings identifying the plane then yes the engine should be the size stated, but what if it was not the said plane but was a plane? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tamborine man
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 74
Location: Qld. Australia
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 6:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Mark Gobell wrote: | | I think the photograph is a little way back on this page marky |
thanks for pointing the photo out, not sure why i missed it.
ok "assuming" the engine hit where he says, and the fact we have a estimated height(of a person) to measure against an engine giving us an idea of how big the engine impact hole should be, he could be right, but i cannot say with any degree of certainty, due to the photo not quite being straight on, but it does appear at first glance the hole where you'd expect the engine to of entered is small or the enigne is partially above the wing, but would it appear differently with a head on view?
the angle on the photo in question is a little lower down and to the right.
also there is a presumption on what plane hit, if you can find one image with clear markings identifying the plane then yes the engine should be the size stated, but what if it was not the said plane but was a plane? |
It is very true that angles, perspectives, zoom-ins etc. from viewpoints
can completely distort perceptions of reality, but in this case we have the
woman as reference which changes things in our favour.
I took the 'worst' case scenario and had the woman standing close to the
facade opening and the rib which partly obscure her. And it really makes
very little difference whether the woman is 5' or 6' tall; we will still be left
with a considerable discrepancy proportion-wise. Only if the woman
would be 2-3 feet tall or 8-9 feet tall, would the photo begin to make
sense in relation to the engine alone, but that seems rather unlikely!
And remember that if the woman is standing back just 2-3' from the
facade rib, then she would appear even taller in proportion to same rib if
she were to come forward and stand next to it. This would make the
engines impact hole happen even further below her feet than the mere 3'
suggested!
These considerations are of course not addressed to people convinced
that a large Boing did NOT hid the tower, but exclusively to those people
who are still convinced that such a plane did.
Are we close to proving something here?
Anyone knowing the width of the ribs and the space between them?
Am I close by estimating these dimensions to be 350 to 400mm or
ca. 14" to 16"?
_________________
What IS can never die |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
