| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
prole art threat
Validated Poster
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 804
Location: London Town
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
prole art threat
Validated Poster
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 804
Location: London Town
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:20 am Post subject: Re: Extremely important evidence herein. |
 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWpRGLrkIsw&mode=related&search
I just found it on Google and I feel this is so IMORTANT. We now have proof what damage a plane does to a concrete wall!
This leads on to the fact that how on earth could a plane appear out of the other end of a building?
Discuss.
Last edited by prole art threat on Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:22 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| that concrete block looks very think and held in place compared to what the towers would of been like i think but they had steel to so would that given them more strenght than that block? plus i'd guess weight plays a part to. so that clip is a bit inconclusive for me. would of been nice to see the mess left after the dust from the concrete settled, to see if it vapourised(which i doubt, but could of been used to show people they dont vapourise in to thin air). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
prole art threat
Validated Poster
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 804
Location: London Town
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | that concrete block looks very think and held in place compared to what the towers would of been like i think but they had steel to so would that given them more strenght than that block? plus i'd guess weight plays a part to. so that clip is a bit inconclusive for me. would of been nice to see the mess left after the dust from the concrete settled, to see if it vapourised(which i doubt, but could of been used to show people they dont vapourise in to thin air). |
Please can you clarify what you think to the clip I have shown you and how it appears 'inconclusive'? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mainly because its a crash test, and the concrete wall seems to be placed on some sort of metal frame helping to hold the wall steady or give more strenght, where as the tower walls have nothing stoping them from being pushed inward. from the crash test the block looks secured which takes some of the force so the plane can just keep going into it without the block being pushed forward or toppled over. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
prole art threat
Validated Poster
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 804
Location: London Town
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | mainly because its a crash test, and the concrete wall seems to be placed on some sort of metal frame helping to hold the wall steady or give more strenght, where as the tower walls have nothing stoping them from being pushed inward. from the crash test the block looks secured which takes some of the force so the plane can just keep going into it without the block being pushed forward or toppled over. |
The towers were made out of reinforced concrete, a complex latticed grille of steel and concrete.
You are talking utter rubbish, youre just saying the first thing that comes into your head, arent you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| prole art threat wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | mainly because its a crash test, and the concrete wall seems to be placed on some sort of metal frame helping to hold the wall steady or give more strenght, where as the tower walls have nothing stoping them from being pushed inward. from the crash test the block looks secured which takes some of the force so the plane can just keep going into it without the block being pushed forward or toppled over. |
The towers were made out of reinforced concrete, a complex latticed grille of steel and concrete.
You are talking utter rubbish, youre just saying the first thing that comes into your head, arent you? |
i dont think so, if something was holding the walls of the towers steady behind the impact, the plane might not of entered the building also the impact zone wasnt all solid concrete it was more of a web of concrete and steel due to the windows. im just saying that clip dosnt prove that the planes wouldnt of entered the towers, unless it was the same thickness of the towers only had support from top and bottom(not behind) and had windows in it. im a believer something strange happened on 9/11 but if i dont pick fault they will, so you need to explain everything thats gonna be thrown at you, and is also important to do so incase a theory is wrong so please dont make assumption about talking utter rubbish, i was just telling you what a non believer would say and what i thought when i first saw it. like i said the first time it would of shown the vapourising story was nonsance if the clip lasted longer, but sadly it dosnt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
prole art threat
Validated Poster
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 804
Location: London Town
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Marky, please stop speculating and read about the towers' specifications. Thanks. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
Frank Demartini's Statement
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.
Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scar
Moderate Poster
Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 724
Location: Brighton
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
see now you put a link up to provide information about the building , thanks to my nit picking  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sorry nit picking again, it says it can withstand(wont fall down) if impacted and says it would be like a pencil punture(not that the plane wont enter the building but if it did it wouldnt effect the stucture). so we know the building wouldnt fall due to an impact but what about entering the building? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
prole art threat
Validated Poster
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 804
Location: London Town
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | sorry nit picking again, it says it can withstand(wont fall down) if impacted and says it would be like a pencil punture(not that the plane wont enter the building but if it did it wouldnt effect the stucture). so we know the building wouldnt fall due to an impact but what about entering the building? |
Oh f uck off. Youre talking utter bollox! * off and get off this forum you f ucking idiot!
Can someone interpret. It's f ucking idiots like Marky54 who are as much an enemy as the perpertrators.
Too much fluoride in the water, that's what I reckon.
It is the denial of psychologically weak people that is our biggest barrier to TRUTH!.
I have been pushing this message relentlessly on a daily basis for more than a year now and it is these folk in denial that are exhausing our movement's psycholgical and spiritual resources. They deserve to be swore at. And flogged.  They are a menace to everything that is good and I am beginning to despise them. I need a holiday from all this bs.
Peace and Truth,
Prole Art Threat.
Last edited by prole art threat on Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:31 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Incredible movie clip. An US F4 Phantom Jet tests the strength of a concrete wall built to withstand a nuclear blast by crashing into it at 500 MPH. A high rate FPS camera is used to watch the plane literally turn into dust. Fortunately, the pilot walked away with only a few bumps and bruises and a broken right arm.
Thanks to the heads up of "Ghost" over at Rumor Mill News, who found this video:
"A US F4 Phantom Jet tests the strength of a concrete wall built to withstand a nuclear blast by crashing into it at 500 MPH. A high rate FPS camera is used to watch the plane literally turn into dust |
My tuppeneth worth
Interesting evidence. Another piece in the jigsaw, but this is not overwhelming conclusive IMO, unlike many other facts that are conclusive and prove the Commission lied.
You would need to know the strength, degree of reinforcement, thickness etc of the wall before making a reliable comparison and know how the impact of a F4 compares to a Boeing (assuming it was a Boeing 7X7 ). But then again it is sufficient evidence to require the authorities to replicate realsitic conditions that mirror the pentagon and a Boeing 757 hitting the outer wall. Now that would be an interesting experiement. I think we could guess what would happen and it wouldn't involve creating a nice neat hole and then continuing through 5 more reinforced walls. You would of course need to replicate the upgrading work that was done to that section of the Pentagon.
We could even have another test replicating the alleged Pennsylvannia crash as well. In the scale of things it wouldn't cost that much and surely not too much to ask to shut us 'conspiracy theorists' up.
Reopen 9/11
Last edited by ian neal on Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:46 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ian neal wrote: | | Quote: | Incredible movie clip. An US F4 Phantom Jet tests the strength of a concrete wall built to withstand a nuclear blast by crashing into it at 500 MPH. A high rate FPS camera is used to watch the plane literally turn into dust. Fortunately, the pilot walked away with only a few bumps and bruises and a broken right arm.
Thanks to the heads up of "Ghost" over at Rumor Mill News, who found this video:
"A US F4 Phantom Jet tests the strength of a concrete wall built to withstand a nuclear blast by crashing into it at 500 MPH. A high rate FPS camera is used to watch the plane literally turn into dust |
My tuppeneth worth
Interesting evidence. Another piece in the jigsaw, but this is not overwhelming conclusive IMO, unlike many other facts that are conclusive and prove the Commission lied.
You would need to know the strength, degree of reinforcement, thickness etc of the wall before making a reliable comparison and know how the impact of a F4 compares to a Boeing (assuming it was a Boeing 7X7 ) |
Ian
Prole posted this on another thread
please freeze the action at 45 seconds and tell us what you think is inconsistent with a jetliner ramming into a skyscraper |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | | ian neal wrote: | | Quote: | Incredible movie clip. An US F4 Phantom Jet tests the strength of a concrete wall built to withstand a nuclear blast by crashing into it at 500 MPH. A high rate FPS camera is used to watch the plane literally turn into dust. Fortunately, the pilot walked away with only a few bumps and bruises and a broken right arm.
Thanks to the heads up of "Ghost" over at Rumor Mill News, who found this video:
"A US F4 Phantom Jet tests the strength of a concrete wall built to withstand a nuclear blast by crashing into it at 500 MPH. A high rate FPS camera is used to watch the plane literally turn into dust |
My tuppeneth worth
Interesting evidence. Another piece in the jigsaw, but this is not overwhelming conclusive IMO, unlike many other facts that are conclusive and prove the Commission lied.
You would need to know the strength, degree of reinforcement, thickness etc of the wall before making a reliable comparison and know how the impact of a F4 compares to a Boeing (assuming it was a Boeing 7X7 ) |
try again
Ian
Prole posted this on another thread
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMT4REHBvFk&NR
please freeze the action at 45 seconds and tell us what you think is inconsistent with a jetliner ramming into a skyscraper |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| prole art threat wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | sorry nit picking again, it says it can withstand(wont fall down) if impacted and says it would be like a pencil punture(not that the plane wont enter the building but if it did it wouldnt effect the stucture). so we know the building wouldnt fall due to an impact but what about entering the building? |
Oh f uck off. Youre talking utter bollox! * off and get off this forum you f ucking idiot!
Can someone interpret. It's f ucking idiots like Marky54 who are as much an enemy as the perpertrators.
Too much fluoride in the water, that's what I reckon.
It is the denial of psychologically weak people that is our biggest barrier to TRUTH!.
I have been pushing this message relentlessly on a daily basis for more than a year now and it is these folk in denial that are exhausing our movement's psycholgical and spiritual resources. They deserve to be swore at. And flogged. They are a menace to everything that is good and I am beginning to despise them. I need a holiday from all this bs.
Peace and Truth,
Prole Art Threat. |
Now now behave. You don't need me to tell you that you are contravening the principles of this site. Namely allowing everyone to speak their own truth. If that truth is in your opinion hopelessly ill-informed then say so but do so respectfully. Now go and chill out a bit (take a holiday if that's what it takes) and come back when you are calm.
You keep fighting for the truth to come out when the truth is this process is inevitable. They can't put the genie back in the bottle and the victory of humanity over the PTWSBNM (The Powers That Will Soon Be No More) is assured. I just wish you could see this but you will as events prove me right (unless of course they don't). Enough said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| prole art threat wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | sorry nit picking again, it says it can withstand(wont fall down) if impacted and says it would be like a pencil punture(not that the plane wont enter the building but if it did it wouldnt effect the stucture). so we know the building wouldnt fall due to an impact but what about entering the building? |
Oh f uck off. Youre talking utter bollox! * off and get off this forum you f ucking idiot!
Can someone interpret. It's f ucking idiots like Marky54 who are as much an enemy as the perpertrators.
Too much fluoride in the water, that's what I reckon.
It is the denial of psychologically weak people that is our biggest barrier to TRUTH!.
I have been pushing this message relentlessly on a daily basis for more than a year now and it is these folk in denial that are exhausing our movement's psycholgical and spiritual resources. They deserve to be swore at. And flogged. They are a menace to everything that is good and I am beginning to despise them. I need a holiday from all this bs.
Peace and Truth,
Prole Art Threat. |
mmmmm totally over the top, i read the report you linked and didnt see where it says a plane would not of entered the building, i only saw that it was saying they would withstand the imapct (meaning not fail,will not fall down,that they will stand proud and lose no strenght, because it would be like a pencil punture in the webbing.) and becuase i point that out you get all nasty. well if i hadnt of said it someone else would of, and you dont know me so dont judge me, i think 9/11 was also a cover-up from the evidence i see , that does not mean i have to agree with the no plane theory. and i will not be misled or just accept anything to be fact that i can see fault with, i believe there were planes, its just a matter of if they were 767's or not for me. but if you want to lose people due to your rude comments then ill go. i have never been insulted that bad when having a debate with a non beilever. please look in this thread and see where i insulted you a*s wipe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | please freeze the action at 45 seconds and tell us what you think is inconsistent with a jetliner ramming into a skyscraper |
I thought I had. I'm not saying it is not important and this is just my opinion but
a F4 is not a Boeing 757 and
there is no evidence presented here that shows how closely the concrete wall hit is comparable with the pentagon wall or the twin towers.
Without that you are not comparing like with like and so therefore it is not conclusive. Interesting but not conclusive |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | ...... see where i insulted you a*s wipe. |
Marky,
Don't trade insults regardless of the provocation |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Watch the clip a frame at a time from 45 seconds
Can you please explain how the plane has completely entered the building
with no explosion and no plane parts have fallen down the side of the building.
The explosion then appears from the opposite side of the building
This is not what would have happened with a real plane
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMT4REHBvFk&NR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| i carnt answer that, and although im not a believer of no planes im trying to get my head around it because there should be debris, i was hoping to get somewhere with prole art threat before the insults started flying, i was trying to get him to answer the questions others would ask inorder to try and get information to form a case with the information gathered so far in here, as i watched this clip before and can clearly see its not consistant with a plane crash, i mentioned this in another thread when i was exploring no planes but gave up because the plane hole was not explainable, its weird no wing tips or tail section parts get torn of with parts of those areas being so thin. but it needs to be explained how you carve a shape in a building which is puzzling and where i hit a brick wall(no pun intended) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You get a plane shape by planting explosives in such a way to get that shape |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
why is there no explosion from the side the plane enters?
The jet fuel is stored in the planes wing - there should have been an explosion upon impact
Of course ghost planes don't need jet fuel to propel them |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ok im not disagreing when i ask this but, if you look at the photos theres a thin slither where the wings go, and just asking if this is possible to do from explosives? to get questions answered rather than pick fault, damn im so scared to ask questions now  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| this is just a thought from what we know, there is problems identifying the plane, the plane dosnt explode on impact and leaves a plane shaped hole. could something of been made especially for this job ie: a large missle done up to look like a plane that can be remote controlled? because its the only way i can explain the plain shape and no debris if the missle wings was made of toughier material than a plane, and no explotion on impact, and the missle could of penertated walls. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| i carnt find a link to something showing a missle hitting a wall or building or something to compare. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
