| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Headhunter
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 117
Location: Canada
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 12:46 am Post subject: |
 |
|
CGI? Have you considered this from every angle and perspective, rationally? You need to think it all the way through once again.
_________________
Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime
“We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth.” - George W. Bush |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Headhunter wrote: | | CGI? Have you considered this from every angle and perspective, rationally? You need to think it all the way through once again. |
Look in a mirror, replace "CGI" with "real plane", and read the above to yourself |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Headhunter
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 117
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 2:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, a couple of examples of what I mean.
Impact gashes
Eyewitnesses
Effects from high speed video capture, like deinterlacing, motion blurr, etc.
Mostly impact gashes and eyewitnesses though. Stuff like that..
_________________
Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime
“We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth.” - George W. Bush |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 3:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Headhunter wrote: | Ok, a couple of examples of what I mean.
Impact gashes
Eyewitnesses
Effects from high speed video capture, like deinterlacing, motion blurr, etc.
Mostly impact gashes and eyewitnesses though. Stuff like that.. |
Impact gashes?? The CGI aluminum cleanly sliced through steel and concrete!
We can be assured the corporate media was using the best video equipment available.
Eyewitnesses don't mean much on a day like 9/11. Some people say they saw big planes, some say they saw small planes. Some claim to have seen missiles. Others say they saw no plane, just an explosion.
Reporter: I'm actually uptown at 86th and Riverside. I can see the World Trade Center from about half the building up to the top. And about five minutes ago, as I was watching the smoke, a small plane -- I did -- it looked like a propeller plane, came in from the west. And about 20 or 25 stories below the top of the center, disappeared for a second, and then explode behind a water tower, so I couldn't tell whether it hit the building or not. But it was very visible, that a plane had come in at a low altitude and appeared to crash into the World Trade Center.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.01.html
Scroll down about 2/3 of this page for more:
http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Headhunter
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 117
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 6:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
No, it's a question. How do you explain the impact gashes?
Or do you think they were created with specially shaped charges?
_________________
Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime
“We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth.” - George W. Bush |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | AFA I'm concerned, you are too afraid to see the reality of the CGI plane on 9/11. May I ask... what expertise do you have to counter the following people? |
Well, I've worked in the construction industry for 20 years and know a thing or two about buildings especially having worked for half that time as an architect.
What are your credentials when discussing the towers?
I'm glad to see you have ignored my point about the birds disappearing into the planes since that is what happened to the Boeings in the towers (if indeed they were Boeings).
I like the fact that you still ignore the very simple matter of the relative sizes of the outer walls and each aircraft.
I also note the fact that you continue to ignore the construction of the outer walls and fail to relate this to the holes made in each tower for if you did bother to analyse and think carefully you would appreciate that each Boeing did not necessarily cut through the steel but simply pushed the pre-fabricated sections inwards with such force as to break the (much weaker) bolts which held everything together. The wing tip marks are not slices through the steel but are cuts into the outer aluminium cladding (or were you not aware that there was such cladding?)
In all, you continue to wallow in fantasy land either because you are an idiot, a shill or both. You obviously have zero capacity for rational thought just like your master Andrew Johnson. I hope you are all happy together.
This website and the 9/11 movement will fail because of AJ and his little team. Why some of the other moderators cannot sort this out I don't know, surely they must see what damage it is doing.
Bye Bye |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thermate
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 13 Nov 2006
Posts: 445
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | *INSERT DISINFO HERE* |
I wish they'd hurry with the 'Ignore' function on this board...
_________________
Make love, not money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thermate
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 13 Nov 2006
Posts: 445
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | This website and the 9/11 movement will fail because of AJ and his little team. Why some of the other moderators cannot sort this out I don't know, surely they must see what damage it is doing. |
Wise words.
_________________
Make love, not money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Headhunter wrote: | No, it's a question. How do you explain the impact gashes?
Or do you think they were created with specially shaped charges? |
Of course they were created with charges, DUH! If the perps are gonna use CGIs do you think they're not going to create impact damage? My God! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thermate wrote: | | CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | *INSERT DISINFO HERE* |
I wish they'd hurry with the 'Ignore' function on this board... |
to alter someone's comments shows you to be a real looser. You people need to be flushed away |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 12:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | AFA I'm concerned, you are too afraid to see the reality of the CGI plane on 9/11. May I ask... what expertise do you have to counter the following people? |
|
| James C wrote: |
Well, I've worked in the construction industry for 20 years and know a thing or two about buildings especially having worked for half that time as an architect. |
You may have construction and architect experience but you obviously have little scientific thinking ability.
| James C wrote: |
What are your credentials when discussing the towers? |
I can think, and know what information to look at. And so can the four scientists/experts I mentioned, which you conveniently forgot about. Are you aware that NO scientist has refuted the physics of the CGI?
| James C wrote: |
I'm glad to see you have ignored my point about the birds disappearing into the planes since that is what happened to the Boeings in the towers (if indeed they were Boeings). |
Now you're having hallucinations. The birds did not "disappear" into the planes. And they did not create a cartoon-cutout like your "planes" did. And I could assure you, the bird was crushed while it penetrated the plane. It didn't simply glide into it as if flying in the air, which is what the CGIs did at the WTC. You are ignoring pertinent data.
| James C wrote: |
I like the fact that you still ignore the very simple matter of the relative sizes of the outer walls and each aircraft. |
I only ignore irrelevant data. Your box column information does not explain the plane gliding into the building as it glides through the air.
| James C wrote: |
I also note the fact that you continue to ignore the construction of the outer walls and fail to relate this to the holes made in each tower for if you did bother to analyse and think carefully you would appreciate that each Boeing did not necessarily cut through the steel but simply pushed the pre-fabricated sections inwards with such force as to break the (much weaker) bolts which held everything together. The wing tip marks are not slices through the steel but are cuts into the outer aluminium cladding (or were you not aware that there was such cladding?) |
No amount of analysis of the construction would explain the anomalies I listed. If you look carefully enough you'll see the "wingtip" also cuts the steel behind the cladding.
| James C wrote: |
In all, you continue to wallow in fantasy land either because you are an idiot, a shill or both. You obviously have zero capacity for rational thought just like your master Andrew Johnson. I hope you are all happy together. |
Now you're talking like an total moron. It figures, since you use pathological science. They seem to go hand-in-hand.
| James C wrote: |
This website and the 9/11 movement will fail because of AJ and his little team. Why some of the other moderators cannot sort this out I don't know, surely they must see what damage it is doing. |
Read here and here and get a dose of reality. You're being taken for a fool.
Tootle-loo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andyb
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1025
Location: SW London
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 12:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
CB, Ive seen your posts on 911blogger and I've yet to see you post anything that would make me think there were no planes. All you seem to do is abuse people(a common trait amongst NPT'ers) If you want to make people believe your argument then perhaps explaining it as opposed to abuse would do you great favours.
Andrew Johnson, you seem to encourage all this yet remian silent when the debunking happens. Can you provide us with any more 'evidence' other than 'delayed fireball' and 'more likelihood of hitting target' for your beliefs. I know you are an intelligent bloke yet your backing for these theories is highly questionable when you don't answer these questions. I have asked numerous times and tend to get avoided. I've said many times before I would love it if this was proved as it would be a trump card for us, until then it makes us look like fools.
_________________
"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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 12:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| andyb wrote: | CB, Ive seen your posts on 911blogger and I've yet to see you post anything that would make me think there were no planes. All you seem to do is abuse people(a common trait amongst NPT'ers) If you want to make people believe your argument then perhaps explaining it as opposed to abuse would do you great favours.
Andrew Johnson, you seem to encourage all this yet remian silent when the debunking happens. Can you provide us with any more 'evidence' other than 'delayed fireball' and 'more likelihood of hitting target' for your beliefs. I know you are an intelligent bloke yet your backing for these theories is highly questionable when you don't answer these questions. I have asked numerous times and tend to get avoided. I've said many times before I would love it if this was proved as it would be a trump card for us, until then it makes us look like fools. |
andyb, you see things backwards. My abuse posts at government-front 911blogger are in direct retaliation from the constant ad hominem attacks. You can't see the common sense in TV-Fakery because you're incapable of applying simple physical laws to the event. AJ does not believe in censorship. If that's what you want, then head over to 911blooger.com and converse with the fascists over there. TV-Fakery is based on simple laws of physics and has not been refuted. The people damaging the movement are those who try to prevent discussion of the real issues. Read my articles at 911researchers, and if you really care about the truth, consider standing up for what's right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Headhunter
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 117
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 12:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
CB, have you ever gone by the monicur "Izzy" or "malaprop"?
_________________
Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime
“We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth.” - George W. Bush |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Headhunter wrote: | | CB, have you ever gone by the monicur "Izzy" or "malaprop"? |
nope... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 3:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yawn and Ignore
_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE< |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallious
Moderate Poster
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 11:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="CB_Brooklyn"] | andyb wrote: | | TV-Fakery is based on simple laws of physics and has not been refuted. The people damaging the movement are those who try to prevent discussion of the real issues. |
Correction. It has been physically (you know, using maths, the universal constant!) proven that the planes had more than enough force to enter the buildings. You know this, and yet you've refused to discuss the issue and you certainly haven't refuted the point.
So in those two paragraphs, you lie twice and make a hypocritical statement. Nice one.
_________________
"Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 1:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Fallious"] | CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | andyb wrote: | | TV-Fakery is based on simple laws of physics and has not been refuted. The people damaging the movement are those who try to prevent discussion of the real issues. |
Correction. It has been physically (you know, using maths, the universal constant!) proven that the planes had more than enough force to enter the buildings. You know this, and yet you've refused to discuss the issue and you certainly haven't refuted the point.
So in those two paragraphs, you lie twice and make a hypocritical statement. Nice one. |
You seem to suffer from memory lapses. Did you inherit that or were you born that way?
There is no math proof that any type of plane could enter any type of building in the manner as seen on 9/11. If you think otherwise, your are delusional and crazy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Headhunter
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 117
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 2:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think the principal is called INTERTIA, and a Boeing 767, travelling at over 575MPH, running into a stationary building, has quite a bit of it, to say the least, even to the very wing tips themselves.
| Headhunter wrote: | First it will penetrate. Ever seen what projectiles will do in a tornado or hurricane, and in this case, were talking much much larger mass, much higher speed, and therefore much greater inertia.
Full speed CNN impact video
http://www.letsroll911.net/images/CNN-2ndTowerStrike-Pod-Missile-Sound -4.6meg.MPG
Here is what a mere splinter of wood can do to a concrete (possibly granite?) wall.
Second, were all the anomalies I pointed out (from multiple cameras and angles) in that presentation given in the OP "CGI'd" in? Gimme a break! 
http://tinyurl.com/y2qm4t
|
_________________
Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime
“We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth.” - George W. Bush |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 3:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Headhunter wrote: | | I think the principal is called INTERTIA, and a Boeing 767, travelling at over 575MPH, running into a stationary building, has quite a bit of it, to say the least, even to the very wing tips themselves. |
Inertia (the resistance an object has to a change in its state of motion) is actually only dependent on mass, not velocity. Also it does not matter which object (the plane or the building) is moving at ~500MPH, the results would be the same. Certainly an airplane and a building would have a lot of inertia. But the Laws of Physics need to work hand-in-hand.
Newton's Third Law of Motion:
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
An aluminum shell can't glide through steel columns like it glides through the air. The steel is going to push back at the aluminum with the same force the aluminum hits the steel with. Which is stronger? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Headhunter
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 117
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 4:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Intertia is the tendency for an object in motion to stay in motion, and for an object at rest, to remain at rest. And yes, it does make a difference, the velocity, and that one object was in motion and the other (perimeter wall) at rest also makes a difference. I think you all messed up in the mind, suffering from WNPD (Webfairian No Planer Disorder).
_________________
Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime
“We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth.” - George W. Bush |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 11:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | Headhunter wrote: | | I think the principal is called INTERTIA, and a Boeing 767, travelling at over 575MPH, running into a stationary building, has quite a bit of it, to say the least, even to the very wing tips themselves. |
Inertia (the resistance an object has to a change in its state of motion) is actually only dependent on mass, not velocity. Also it does not matter which object (the plane or the building) is moving at ~500MPH, the results would be the same. Certainly an airplane and a building would have a lot of inertia. But the Laws of Physics need to work hand-in-hand.
Newton's Third Law of Motion:
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
An aluminum shell can't glide through steel columns like it glides through the air. The steel is going to push back at the aluminum with the same force the aluminum hits the steel with. Which is stronger? |
It just goes to show you that a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing, especially by a shill.
Perhaps, CB_Brooklyn, you should try out Newtons 3rd law and stand in front of a truck travelling at 60mph. By your assumptions, your body should resist the forces placed upon it by the truck with an automatic equal and opposite force. Somehow though, I'm not sure you'll be alive to see whether this is true. Just to make the experiment more lifelike, perhaps you should get together with the other shills and stand in a line holding hands (to replicate a lattice wall). I still hazzard a guess that one or all of you will not resist that truck very well.
Please also bear in mind that steel is 3 times stronger than aluminium but also 3 times heavier. If you take an aluminium bar which is 3 times bigger than a steel bar then they will be as strong as each other. Now go and think about that carefully in relation to the relative sizes of the plane and the outer wall. (Remember 14" versus 2113")
Also remember that the steel lattice work was not homogenous. It was made of pre-fab pieces held together with bolts. These bolts were even smaller when compared to the size of the plane and would have offered little resistance to such a massive body, a bit like your hands in the truck analogy above.
I see what you are saying about the velocity part of the momentum equation such that the wall is effectively travelling at 500mph towards the plane but perhaps you should calculate the momentum of the outer wall. If you did, you will find that the momentum of the wall (and you can only include the mass of steel work directly hit by the plane) is a tiny fraction of the momentum of the plane. Now, again, go back to my truck analogy above and work out why you are talking sh*t.
I notice that Andrew Johnson remains silent on this issue. As I've always said, when questions get tough, AJ runs away.
As ever, this is a case of no-planes for no-brains! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="James C"] | CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | Headhunter wrote: | | I think the principal is called INTERTIA, and a Boeing 767, travelling at over 575MPH, running into a stationary building, has quite a bit of it, to say the least, even to the very wing tips themselves. |
Inertia (the resistance an object has to a change in its state of motion) is actually only dependent on mass, not velocity. Also it does not matter which object (the plane or the building) is moving at ~500MPH, the results would be the same. Certainly an airplane and a building would have a lot of inertia. But the Laws of Physics need to work hand-in-hand.
Newton's Third Law of Motion:
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
An aluminum shell can't glide through steel columns like it glides through the air. The steel is going to push back at the aluminum with the same force the aluminum hits the steel with. Which is stronger? |
It just goes to show you that a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing, especially in the mind of a shill.
Perhaps, CB_Brooklyn, you should try out Newtons 3rd law and stand in front of a truck travelling at 60mph. By your assumptions, your body should resist the forces placed upon it by the truck with an automatic equal and opposite force. Somehow though, I'm not sure you'll be alive to see whether this is true. Just to make the experiment more lifelike, perhaps you should get together with the other shills and stand in a line holding hands (to replicate a lattice wall). I still hazzard a guess that one or all of you will not resist that truck very well.
Please also bear in mind that steel is 3 times stronger than aluminium but also 3 times heavier. If you take an aluminium bar which is 3 times bigger than a steel bar then they will be as strong as each other. Now go and think about that carefully in relation to the relative sizes of the plane and the outer wall. (Remember 14" versus 2113")
Also remember that the steel lattice work was not homogenous. It was made of pre-fab pieces held together with bolts. These bolts were even smaller when compared to the size of the plane and would have offered little resistance to such a massive body, a bit like your hands in the truck analogy above.
I see what you are saying about the velocity part of the momentum equation such that the wall is effectively travelling at 500mph towards the plane but perhaps you should calculate the momentum of the outer wall. If you did, you will find that the momentum of the wall (and you can only include the mass of steel work directly hit by the plane) is a tiny fraction of the momentum of the plane. Now, again, go back to my truck analogy above and work out why you are talking sh*t.
I notice that Andrew Johnson remains silent on this issue. As I've always said, when questions get tough, AJ runs away.
As ever, this is a case of no-planes for no-brains! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 12:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think you guys are "shills" or "disinfo agents" (or I don't think all of you are) I just think you are too quick to leap on more exotic and exiting suggestions.
The question of exactly what happened and how the affects are acheived are secondary or even counter productive to our cause. I can't remember who posted it but some said here recently that they had engineering experience but still ignored these issues because ultimatley we do not have the qualification or the resources to analyse this.
It's a massive disraction, and the NPT and "Death Star" sides of it are just plain damaging.
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Headhunter
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 117
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Quote: | Reynolds, NPT Disinfo Sith Lord
Fetzerthehutt
 |
|
|
_________________
Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime
“We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth.” - George W. Bush |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zabooka
Moderate Poster
Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 446
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
After having read all this and also reading and viewing much of the evidence for being skeptical about there being normal planes hitting the towers...
I still have to repeat that the obvious alternative to normal planes hitting the towers is not holograms. I still do not believe that anyone should be being so strict about their given conclusions on these issues. You can not possibly know all the facts as you have not really made a hands on investigation yourselves, ie using primary pieces of evidence, not secondary and tertiary pieces, which is all I am seeing being used here.
Between real actual planes of Official Government Story hitting Towers and Holograms or Missiles, there is a wealth of alternative hypothesis inbetween.
Yet the most important thing I believe, and I say this to myself included is, people skills, communication skills here, for all of us. Its appalling.
You should just be able to respect people in general. I respect Andrew Johnson a lot, Ive bought much of the campaigning materials he provides, all of it. I respect everyone here, its not your opinion or conclusion that bothers me. Its your conveyance of your opinion and conclusion, and your patience and appreciation to hear other opinions and conclusions.
If you really believe in your opinion and conclusion to be so true and sincere. Then you would not have fear of other peoples opinions and conclusions. There should be no need for the ways in which we have conducted ourselves with eachother here. I have my opinions and conclusions... anything I believe to be true I dont fear any opposition or alternative to it. For I just want the truth, so if you can disprove me, then go ahead I have no fear and I have patience, because I will be more than happy if you can disprove me so that I can dump what I took to be true and then embrace a 'better truth'. However, if what you tell me is false, I have no fear and I should have patience, for if I keep to truth sincerely, Truth Will come out in the end and clear out what is false.
The greatest scholars that we are taught about in Islam, would give their opinions and conclusions and then say, "God Knows Best", meaning that they would never say what I know is the absolute Truth, for none owns that, but God. I appreciate there are athiests on this forum, thus appreciate the fact that I was an athiest and strongly against Islam for most of my life. The reason I say this, is its arrogance to say I know the TRUTH absolutely. YOu may believe that in your heart and mind, however to bring that out and belittle anyone else who has something else different in their heart and mind is arrogance.
Arrogance is very close to ignorance, that is how we regard it in Islam.
Be humble in your striving and your searching for Truth. Do you really think that your methods of ascertaing what is true from false is that much different from someone elses?
If what you say is true, then should your manner in conveyance of what is true befit that truth?
One should not be afraid to say, we are not sure what went into the Pentagon, or what exactly happened at the Pentagon. However we know that the Government knows a lot more about it than it is willing to say and what it has said is false. Same can be said for almost everything else to do with 911.
Concentrate on attacking the Official Government Story... do not waste time attacking eachother's alternatives to the official government story. The gaping holes in the OGCT is enough, no need to attempt to fill that hole yourself; however yes tell people about alternatives that fit better the holes than the OGCT, but let them know that we can not be sure unless we get a full independent enquiry with access to government records.
Please forgive me if I made this post a lil long winded. Forgive me for any offence and I hope I have been able to convey myself well enough. I am not saying stop debating these issues, I am just saying, start debating it in a civil open and humble manner. Stop your lowly ego's from destroying each other's higher natures.
AMEN |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thermate
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 13 Nov 2006
Posts: 445
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | The steel is going to push back at the aluminum with the same force the aluminum hits the steel with. Which is stronger? |
Oh my... I'm curious, what is your IQ? And what do you think ours is? 
This isn't America: The Home of The ~100 IQ President
_________________
Make love, not money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Headhunter wrote: | | Intertia is the tendency for an object in motion to stay in motion, and for an object at rest, to remain at rest. And yes, it does make a difference, the velocity, and that one object was in motion and the other (perimeter wall) at rest also makes a difference. I think you all messed up in the mind, suffering from WNPD (Webfairian No Planer Disorder). |
Sorry diluted planehugger, but your comment about velocity is wrong. Check out some basic high school physics websites if you have the brains to. You have a severe thinking disorder and are messed up in the head |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 3:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="James C"] | James C wrote: | | CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | Headhunter wrote: | | I think the principal is called INTERTIA, and a Boeing 767, travelling at over 575MPH, running into a stationary building, has quite a bit of it, to say the least, even to the very wing tips themselves. |
Inertia (the resistance an object has to a change in its state of motion) is actually only dependent on mass, not velocity. Also it does not matter which object (the plane or the building) is moving at ~500MPH, the results would be the same. Certainly an airplane and a building would have a lot of inertia. But the Laws of Physics need to work hand-in-hand.
Newton's Third Law of Motion:
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
An aluminum shell can't glide through steel columns like it glides through the air. The steel is going to push back at the aluminum with the same force the aluminum hits the steel with. Which is stronger? |
It just goes to show you that a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing, especially in the mind of a shill.
Perhaps, CB_Brooklyn, you should try out Newtons 3rd law and stand in front of a truck travelling at 60mph. By your assumptions, your body should resist the forces placed upon it by the truck with an automatic equal and opposite force. Somehow though, I'm not sure you'll be alive to see whether this is true. Just to make the experiment more lifelike, perhaps you should get together with the other shills and stand in a line holding hands (to replicate a lattice wall). I still hazzard a guess that one or all of you will not resist that truck very well.
Please also bear in mind that steel is 3 times stronger than aluminium but also 3 times heavier. If you take an aluminium bar which is 3 times bigger than a steel bar then they will be as strong as each other. Now go and think about that carefully in relation to the relative sizes of the plane and the outer wall. (Remember 14" versus 2113")
Also remember that the steel lattice work was not homogenous. It was made of pre-fab pieces held together with bolts. These bolts were even smaller when compared to the size of the plane and would have offered little resistance to such a massive body, a bit like your hands in the truck analogy above.
I see what you are saying about the velocity part of the momentum equation such that the wall is effectively travelling at 500mph towards the plane but perhaps you should calculate the momentum of the outer wall. If you did, you will find that the momentum of the wall (and you can only include the mass of steel work directly hit by the plane) is a tiny fraction of the momentum of the plane. Now, again, go back to my truck analogy above and work out why you are talking sh*t.
I notice that Andrew Johnson remains silent on this issue. As I've always said, when questions get tough, AJ runs away.
As ever, this is a case of no-planes for no-brains! |
Your post just goes to show how stupid and scientifically ignorant you and the other planehugging numb-nuts really are.
your comment: By your assumptions, your body should resist the forces placed upon it by the truck with an automatic equal and opposite force shows that your planehugging brain is afflicted by limited thinking, and don't know how to interpret things properly.
If you're hit by a car at 60MPH, the car will show only a minimal amount of resistance. That resistance is the force that you will be returning to the car. The car has more strength, therefore the car wins. If you want a clearer description, get out a physics book, or go ask a physics instructor. If you're not smart enough to put two and two together from the way I describe things then don't bother responding.
Where do you scientifically ignorant planehuggers come from? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 3:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Thermate wrote: | | CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | The steel is going to push back at the aluminum with the same force the aluminum hits the steel with. Which is stronger? |
Oh my... I'm curious, what is your IQ? And what do you think ours is?
This isn't America: The Home of The ~100 IQ President |
I'm not the one who thinks aluminum airplanes glide into steel/concrete buildings. My IQ has been rated above average. Your IQ is obviously that of a dunce. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
