| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 5:57 am Post subject: Re: damn it |
 |
|
| alwun wrote: | Fallious,
It pains me but I owe you an apology.
I was momentarily overcome by triumphalism. Shouldn't happen again.
cheers Al.. |
alwun, from my experience. only the true truthseekers have the ability to apologize. But at least we could be thankful for others like Fallious, without whom we would not have gotten that information. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| For those interested in more views of the debris, see here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
theres some good photos there thanks for the link.
but do holographic birds exsist? the picture of the bird putting a hole in a plane wing is impossible isnt it? we would expect the bird to hit the plane and then fall of leaving only minimal damage to the outside of the wing.
or does that picture prove what can happen at highspeeds? and infact softer going through harder material is quite feesible depending on speed?
for me that picture proves a boeing can enter a steel building if a bird can cause that damage to a wing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | For those interested in more views of the debris, see here. |
The section about the C-130 hitting the tower block is very probably wrong and cannot be used as conclusive proof. A quick check on google will show you that what actually happened is hard to confirm. Some reports say it hit the building, others say it skimmed the top of the building. The report below shows it hit close to the building
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-1909283,00.html
| Quote: | | "I saw the airplane. there was smoke coming out of one engine. It went into the ground very fast, very close to the building," said 30-year-old Mohammad Rasooli, a local resident. "There was a huge explosion which engulfed the housing block." |
This report also states clearly and the footage proves it (click on link), that the plane was trying to land and merely clipped the tower block, rather than ploughing into it.
http://us.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/06/tehran.crash/index.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | theres some good photos there thanks for the link.
but do holographic birds exsist? the picture of the bird putting a hole in a plane wing is impossible isnt it? we would expect the bird to hit the plane and then fall of leaving only minimal damage to the outside of the wing. |
This is part of the confusion  Take a look at this information....
Airplanes are very delicate:
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/aa1420/photo.shtml
and a bird can break right through a Boeing 767, as seen here:
http://www.aviation-engineer.com/767%20Bird%20Strike.html
| marky 54 wrote: |
or does that picture prove what can happen at highspeeds? and infact softer going through harder material is quite feesible depending on speed? |
The thin aluminum 767 couldn't handle the bird's mass.
| marky 54 wrote: |
for me that picture proves a boeing can enter a steel building if a bird can cause that damage to a wing. |
However, we must also take the following into consideration:
The bird was damaged as well. I'm sure we all agree that the bird didn't glide into the plane as if the plane weren't there. The bird was crushed on impact. Unlike at the WTC, which showed a supposed plane gliding in without any damage.
The bird didn't make a cartoon cutout of itself in the plane the way the supposed plane made in the building. If the bird had made a cartoon cutout in the plane, it would have looked something like this (but of course from a different species ) http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/65_CoyotePla te.jpg |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 4:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | theres some good photos there thanks for the link.
but do holographic birds exsist? the picture of the bird putting a hole in a plane wing is impossible isnt it? we would expect the bird to hit the plane and then fall of leaving only minimal damage to the outside of the wing. |
This is part of the confusion Take a look at this information....
Airplanes are very delicate:
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/aa1420/photo.shtml
and a bird can break right through a Boeing 767, as seen here:
http://www.aviation-engineer.com/767%20Bird%20Strike.html
| marky 54 wrote: |
or does that picture prove what can happen at highspeeds? and infact softer going through harder material is quite feesible depending on speed? |
The thin aluminum 767 couldn't handle the bird's mass.
| marky 54 wrote: |
for me that picture proves a boeing can enter a steel building if a bird can cause that damage to a wing. |
However, we must also take the following into consideration:
The bird was damaged as well. I'm sure we all agree that the bird didn't glide into the plane as if the plane weren't there. The bird was crushed on impact. Unlike at the WTC, which showed a supposed plane gliding in without any damage.
The bird didn't make a cartoon cutout of itself in the plane the way the supposed plane made in the building. If the bird had made a cartoon cutout in the plane, it would have looked something like this (but of course from a different species ) http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/65_CoyotePla te.jpg |
what rubbish the bird did make a hole in the shape of its body(not wings,legs,head which all bend and fold easily) and thats why it stayed there till they landed and retreived it.
the plane that went into the towers was also damaged how could you claim it was not?
what makes you think the towers could handle the planes mass?
if a bird that has lightweight bones and weighs nothing compared to an aircraft can do that damage i still fail to see why the same isnt applied to the towers. its NOT about the objects its about the speed of the impact.
how deep was the hole on the plane? did it hit the plane and fall of or did momentum take it deeper into the wing?
where there windows on the wing?
did the bird have large titanium engines?
no the bird was soft flesh and lightweight bone and look what it did to the plane.
you presumme the plane took no damage at the wtc why? show me an example that the plane took no damage as it entered. the plane was crushing and shattering but had breached the outside wall in the process, all the damage to plane cannot be seen from the outside and only momentum carried the rest of the plane in, its foolish to assume the plane was a solid object at the halfway point into the building. momentum and speed make it appear as though it melted.
if i got hit by a car at 1mph there would be no damage to the car, if i got hit at 50mph id write the car off the bonet would have a bloody good dent in it ect. and the faster i got hit by the car the more damage id do it. the damage to myself would also increase. see! its speed that matters! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 4:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| speed dictates the damage done, it would be more of a cartoon if the plane had flew into the wtc at 500MPH! hit the wall and then slid down its face leaving a little crack in it. so what should of happened? tells us...... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | theres some good photos there thanks for the link.
but do holographic birds exsist? the picture of the bird putting a hole in a plane wing is impossible isnt it? we would expect the bird to hit the plane and then fall of leaving only minimal damage to the outside of the wing. |
This is part of the confusion Take a look at this information....
Airplanes are very delicate:
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/aa1420/photo.shtml
and a bird can break right through a Boeing 767, as seen here:
http://www.aviation-engineer.com/767%20Bird%20Strike.html
| marky 54 wrote: |
or does that picture prove what can happen at highspeeds? and infact softer going through harder material is quite feesible depending on speed? |
The thin aluminum 767 couldn't handle the bird's mass.
| marky 54 wrote: |
for me that picture proves a boeing can enter a steel building if a bird can cause that damage to a wing. |
However, we must also take the following into consideration:
The bird was damaged as well. I'm sure we all agree that the bird didn't glide into the plane as if the plane weren't there. The bird was crushed on impact. Unlike at the WTC, which showed a supposed plane gliding in without any damage.
The bird didn't make a cartoon cutout of itself in the plane the way the supposed plane made in the building. If the bird had made a cartoon cutout in the plane, it would have looked something like this (but of course from a different species ) http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/65_CoyotePla te.jpg |
what rubbish the bird did make a hole in the shape of its body(not wings,legs,head which all bend and fold easily) and thats why it stayed there till they landed and retreived it. |
oh, so a bird's wings and legs fold easily, and airplanes wings can glide through steel and concrete?
The bird did NOT make an outline of itself. If we had a slow motion video of the bird hitting the plane, you would see the bird being crushed on impact. It would not glide into the plane.
| marky 54 wrote: |
the plane that went into the towers was also damaged how could you claim it was not? |
That statement shows that you just don't understand how to interpret the information. The aluminum "plane" showed no signs of crushing, bending, twisting while gliding through steel and concrete.
| marky 54 wrote: |
what makes you think the towers could handle the planes mass? |
I never said the towers would be undamaged.
| marky 54 wrote: |
if a bird that has lightweight bones and weighs nothing compared to an aircraft can do that damage i still fail to see why the same isnt applied to the towers. its NOT about the objects its about the speed of the impact. |
It certainly is applied to the towers, but you're not applying it correctly. The point is that the "plane" glided into the steel/concrete building with no signs of damage (as I listed above). Your last sentence above is untrue. Speed has nothing to do with a "plane" showing no signs of damage and gliding through steel/concrete. It still violates Newton's Laws of Motion.
| marky 54 wrote: |
how deep was the hole on the plane? did it hit the plane and fall of or did momentum take it deeper into the wing?
where there windows on the wing?
Did the bird have large titanium engines?
no the bird was soft flesh and lightweight bone and look what it did to the plane. |
That's right. The bird was soft compared to the plane and it got crushed on impact. That did not happen at the WTC. In fact, just the opposite happened: The "plane" smoothly glided into the steel and concrete with no signs of bending, crushing, twisting, etc. It's a matter of Newton's Laws of Motion.
| marky 54 wrote: |
you presumme the plane took no damage at the wtc why? show me an example that the plane took no damage as it entered. the plane was crushing and shattering but had breached the outside wall in the process, all the damage to plane cannot be seen from the outside and only momentum carried the rest of the plane in, its foolish to assume the plane was a solid object at the halfway point into the building. momentum and speed make it appear as though it melted. |
If that's how it happened then it would not have created that enormous gash. That violates Conservation of Energy.
The videos here show what would happen in real plane crashes. The 9/11 videos show no such thing: http://www.911researchers.com/node/98
I see no crushing or shattering. But, for arguments sake, if it did crush and shatter. Crushing/shattering would have been caused by resistance. In that case the tail would have broken off as seen in the video in the above link. Especially with the enormous momentum the supposed plane had. And the fuel filled wings would have exploded on impact, and not smoothly glide into the building.
| marky 54 wrote: |
if i got hit by a car at 1mph there would be no damage to the car, if i got hit at 50mph id write the car off the bonet would have a bloody good dent in it ect. and the faster i got hit by the car the more damage id do it. the damage to myself would also increase. see! its speed that matters! |
Speed matters only in amount of damage done. In your case above, you would always receive more damage than the car. The same applies to the WTC. Any plane would always receive more damage than the steel and concrete. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallious
Moderate Poster
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CB_Brooklyn wrote: |
Speed matters only in amount of damage done. In your case above, you would always receive more damage than the car. The same applies to the WTC. Any plane would always receive more damage than the steel and concrete. |
Yes... And?
_________________
"Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | theres some good photos there thanks for the link.
but do holographic birds exsist? the picture of the bird putting a hole in a plane wing is impossible isnt it? we would expect the bird to hit the plane and then fall of leaving only minimal damage to the outside of the wing. |
This is part of the confusion Take a look at this information....
Airplanes are very delicate:
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/aa1420/photo.shtml
and a bird can break right through a Boeing 767, as seen here:
http://www.aviation-engineer.com/767%20Bird%20Strike.html
| marky 54 wrote: |
or does that picture prove what can happen at highspeeds? and infact softer going through harder material is quite feesible depending on speed? |
The thin aluminum 767 couldn't handle the bird's mass.
| marky 54 wrote: |
for me that picture proves a boeing can enter a steel building if a bird can cause that damage to a wing. |
However, we must also take the following into consideration:
The bird was damaged as well. I'm sure we all agree that the bird didn't glide into the plane as if the plane weren't there. The bird was crushed on impact. Unlike at the WTC, which showed a supposed plane gliding in without any damage.
The bird didn't make a cartoon cutout of itself in the plane the way the supposed plane made in the building. If the bird had made a cartoon cutout in the plane, it would have looked something like this (but of course from a different species ) http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/65_CoyotePla te.jpg |
what rubbish the bird did make a hole in the shape of its body(not wings,legs,head which all bend and fold easily) and thats why it stayed there till they landed and retreived it. |
oh, so a bird's wings and legs fold easily, and airplanes wings can glide through steel and concrete?
The bird did NOT make an outline of itself. If we had a slow motion video of the bird hitting the plane, you would see the bird being crushed on impact. It would not glide into the plane.
| marky 54 wrote: |
the plane that went into the towers was also damaged how could you claim it was not? |
That statement shows that you just don't understand how to interpret the information. The aluminum "plane" showed no signs of crushing, bending, twisting while gliding through steel and concrete.
| marky 54 wrote: |
what makes you think the towers could handle the planes mass? |
I never said the towers would be undamaged.
| marky 54 wrote: |
if a bird that has lightweight bones and weighs nothing compared to an aircraft can do that damage i still fail to see why the same isnt applied to the towers. its NOT about the objects its about the speed of the impact. |
It certainly is applied to the towers, but you're not applying it correctly. The point is that the "plane" glided into the steel/concrete building with no signs of damage (as I listed above). Your last sentence above is untrue. Speed has nothing to do with a "plane" showing no signs of damage and gliding through steel/concrete. It still violates Newton's Laws of Motion.
| marky 54 wrote: |
how deep was the hole on the plane? did it hit the plane and fall of or did momentum take it deeper into the wing?
where there windows on the wing?
Did the bird have large titanium engines?
no the bird was soft flesh and lightweight bone and look what it did to the plane. |
That's right. The bird was soft compared to the plane and it got crushed on impact. That did not happen at the WTC. In fact, just the opposite happened: The "plane" smoothly glided into the steel and concrete with no signs of bending, crushing, twisting, etc. It's a matter of Newton's Laws of Motion.
| marky 54 wrote: |
you presumme the plane took no damage at the wtc why? show me an example that the plane took no damage as it entered. the plane was crushing and shattering but had breached the outside wall in the process, all the damage to plane cannot be seen from the outside and only momentum carried the rest of the plane in, its foolish to assume the plane was a solid object at the halfway point into the building. momentum and speed make it appear as though it melted. |
If that's how it happened then it would not have created that enormous gash. That violates Conservation of Energy.
The videos here show what would happen in real plane crashes. The 9/11 videos show no such thing: http://www.911researchers.com/node/98
I see no crushing or shattering. But, for arguments sake, if it did crush and shatter. Crushing/shattering would have been caused by resistance. In that case the tail would have broken off as seen in the video in the above link. Especially with the enormous momentum the supposed plane had. And the fuel filled wings would have exploded on impact, and not smoothly glide into the building.
| marky 54 wrote: |
if i got hit by a car at 1mph there would be no damage to the car, if i got hit at 50mph id write the car off the bonet would have a bloody good dent in it ect. and the faster i got hit by the car the more damage id do it. the damage to myself would also increase. see! its speed that matters! |
Speed matters only in amount of damage done. In your case above, you would always receive more damage than the car. The same applies to the WTC. Any plane would always receive more damage than the steel and concrete. |
you are a joke! you are deliberatly putting out disinfo and misleading people and making it harder for geniune npt'ers to be taken seriously at all! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
StopThe9/11CoverUp
Minor Poster
Joined: 12 Dec 2006
Posts: 74
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 8:30 am Post subject: Plausible reason wheel was moved. |
|
|
Hi guys,
I didnt see this mentioned so will add this.
There was a documentary on a while back in which it showed the recovery of a woman who had been hit by a falling aeroplane wheel on 9/11 snapped her back legs etc.
I think the simple reason this wheel was moved was to get it off her.
Ade. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:21 am Post subject: Re: Plausible reason wheel was moved. |
|
|
| StopThe9/11CoverUp wrote: | Hi guys,
There was a documentary on a while back in which it showed the recovery of a woman who had been hit by a falling aeroplane wheel on 9/11 snapped her back legs etc.
Ade. |
Her back legs? I know were are gradually evolving, but this is pushing the boundaries a bit too far.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallious
Moderate Poster
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:27 am Post subject: Re: Plausible reason wheel was moved. |
|
|
| StopThe9/11CoverUp wrote: |
I think the simple reason this wheel was moved was to get it off her.
Ade. |
Ignoring the back legs issue, surely your theory would only make sense if she were in the pictures before it was moved?
_________________
"Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:01 pm Post subject: Re: Plausible reason wheel was moved. |
|
|
| Fallious wrote: | | StopThe9/11CoverUp wrote: |
I think the simple reason this wheel was moved was to get it off her.
Ade. |
Ignoring the back legs issue, surely your theory would only make sense if she were in the pictures before it was moved? |
Do we see here the beginnings of the No Woman Theory? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallious
Moderate Poster
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:47 pm Post subject: Re: Plausible reason wheel was moved. |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Fallious wrote: | | StopThe9/11CoverUp wrote: |
I think the simple reason this wheel was moved was to get it off her.
Ade. |
Ignoring the back legs issue, surely your theory would only make sense if she were in the pictures before it was moved? |
Do we see here the beginnings of the No Woman Theory? |
The PTB prefer to manufacture theories which they can very easily prove to be false if they are ever directly confronted on it. Obviously there also has to be an element of wacked out conspiracy, something insulting to the memory of the event and mad enough for the hardcore tin foilers to accept as gospel. So there is some definite potential for the four legged holographic woman.
_________________
"Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
StopThe9/11CoverUp
Minor Poster
Joined: 12 Dec 2006
Posts: 74
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:24 pm Post subject: please allow me 2 be clear lol |
|
|
1st of all here is the , (comma) that should have appeared after the word back lol.
Secondly i wasnt trying to create a wacky theory you nutters, it reminded me of the woman who was hit by a wheel off one of the planes and thought that little bit of info may have helped. (obviously not).
I shall never again post in the Truth Controversies pages again. Christ im getting * off no planers, beamers, robot mammoth attack forces from mars-ers just because I thought an actual FACT of 9/11 might help this article.
Forgive me for being so absolutely wrong about that. Anyway get back to your debate about a piece of plane moving from A to B, becuz obviously thats the real 9/11 cover up.
Jeez |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
It is a trifle odd that there is no mention of the 'wheel-pinned woman with broken bodyparts' anywhere in any reports currently available. Well, at least, not that I can find.
Something so provocative in terms of content 'Woman trapped by falling aircraft wheel' would be hugely indicative of there actually being (or boeing) real aircraft involved.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
