International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   9/11 Conspiracy Theories (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=64)
-   -   9/11: How they Faked the Videos (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=341275)

yankee451 24th January 2020 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 12965675)
With high enough energy Values even Gases penitrate and Cut Steel.

Plasma Cutter using air to cut steel.
https://youtu.be/P-wUl4AAhWw

How is a plasma cutter, or a water jet, like a 767? Don't you want to trot out the "straw through the tree during a hurricane" BS too? Pathetic. Grow a brain.

yankee451 24th January 2020 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachnut (Post 12965679)
OFF Topic BS

Your missiles pack the massive Kinetic Energy of ---- wait for it ----17 pounds of TNT Massive! lol, you are full of woo

History will show you made up the dumbest claim about impacts at the WTC, missiles without enough kinetic energy to break the WTC Shell. Big failure.

We know your analysis of the video did not prove it was fake.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI

Here is your analysis which failed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gpr...ature=youtu.be

The we have real work which explain how fast a plane has to go to enter the WTC shell. You will not pursue knowledge, you will spread lies.
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1...3A10%281066%29 I got a copy, why don't you - right you fake the investigation and go right to fantasy.

More proof you can't do physics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc-zmb3jAgo

https://i.imgflip.com/3n4p9r.jpg
A correct statement - your meme of woo

And here is my new computer, I can edit photos with no delay
https://i.imgflip.com/395cvx.jpg
My grandsons were using RGB in their computer, I had to keep up.

ON Topic
The big key is, this video is not fake, and you can't do much more than lie about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI
Flight 175 hits the WTC, breaks the shell.


You're spitting on your monitor. Simmer down!

yankee451 24th January 2020 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 12965591)
Pretty sure that I have the physics down on this pretty well.
Water Jet cutting 8 inch stainless steel.
https://youtu.be/lMSGHJ8GJ1A

The water jet is probably the biggest red herring you jokers like to flop out on the deck when you're desperate. A water jet, like a bullet, can penetrate hard materials, because it focuses its mass and energy on as tiny a point as possible.

Yes, water can be used to cut steel. When most folks hear this they have no problem believing a plane could slice a building in half. The key they're missing is pressure. Water can only cut steel with the right pressure, and often only with abrasives added to the water. Even then unless the nozzle is very close to the steel, it won't cut it.



Quote:

“A waterjet is a tool used in machine shops to cut meta
l parts with a (very) high-pressure stream of water. As amazing as it sounds, if you get water flowing fast enough it can actually cut metal.

Think of a waterjet as something with about 30 times the pressure of the power washer wand at your local car wash. Power washing at car washes is an everyday example of a dirt film being "cut" off the body, wheels and tires of an automobile.

The key to cutting metal with water is to keep the spray coherent. Waterjets are able to cut because the spray is channeled through a very narrow jeweled nozzle at a very high pressure to keep the spray coherent.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/en...uestion553.htm

It is a bogus analogy that exposes your ignorance or you intent to obfuscate.

beachnut 24th January 2020 04:28 PM

Argument by projection - missile wings might leave a tiny mark
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965711)
You're spitting on your monitor. Simmer down!

Your post, it is projection.

Good job and posting all the failed argument examples, it is like your video analysis. Bad and failed to make a point.

Real video proves no missiles
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI

Your video proves you are terrible at analysis video and good at making up stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gpr...ature=youtu.be
Right off the bat, you introduce at best and opinion. Failure.

The best part of your fantasy, the claim missiles wings damage the WTC facade, and with only 17 pounds of TNT in Kinetic Energy for the entire missile, your wings might leave a scratch not seen on video or photos. Weak missile wings with much less than 17 pounds of TNT in KE, can't do what you say. Physics continues to make your claims lies based on ignorance of physics and reality.

17 pounds of TNT in joules for KE is 35,498,908, Flight 175 had 2093 pound of TNT, oops, you lost again in the war on physics - that would be 4,380,000,000 joules -= wow, physics

Don't worry, your meme is about Physics
https://i.imgflip.com/3n4p9r.jpg

Bottom line, your post, excellent example of projection

Fact, the videos are real, and you are a terrible video analyst.

Robin 24th January 2020 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965647)
You guys seem to like seeing your words in type. I understand the psychology better than most, certainly better than someone that won't examine their own role in the matter.



Speaking for myself, I already have changed my mind. As explained numerous times I once believed the same tripe you do. But I evolved. What you're upset about is you haven't. So you want me to change "back."



I would love to see what historians write about the psychology of humanity during this "age of fraud."

How are you going with that explanation of how a cruise missile with airframe largely intact can pass through that little gap that is much too small for a cruise missile to pass through?

beachnut 24th January 2020 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965720)
[b][hilite]...
It is a bogus analogy that exposes your ignorance or you intent to obfuscate.

Projection again!

Looky

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gpr...ature=youtu.be
I agree, your video is bogus, and exposes your ignorance on a multitude of subjects as you obfuscate the truth.

Good job, another excellent textbook projection example.

Your video is bogus.

This video proves your missiles with 17 pounds of TNT in KE are Bogus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI

What does a wing do with only 17 pounds of TNT for the entire missile? Not much, and would not be the damage you claim is evidence for missiles. There you go, you project a lot.

yankee451 24th January 2020 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12965729)
How are you going with that explanation of how a cruise missile with airframe largely intact can pass through that little gap that is much too small for a cruise missile to pass through?

You have a vivid imagination, comparing a shipping container to the WTC. Missiles are just a delivery system for a bomb, in this case a bunker busting bomb that would continue on long after the airframe disintegrated.

Quote:

AGM-86D missile warheads are about 14 inches wide and weigh 1200 lbs, they are big, powerful missiles that have been around for decades.

The smaller AGM-158 looks like a plane and in 2001 no one had ever seen one before, but if someone had seen one it could easily have been mistaken for a small, white plane. JASSMs were being produced for testing and for the Pilot Production models in 2001, but they were not in the military’s inventory at the time. Official production didn’t begin until December of 2001, giving the authorities plausible deniability, but JASSMs used off-the-shelf technology from other tried and true missile systems so there is no question the technology was there. They look like planes, they are stealthy, they can fly in formation, and with planted targeting beacons, their margin of error would be next to zero. If the hole wasn’t cut by cruise missiles such as the JASSM, it was something very similar.
https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-...e-shaped-hole/

The warheads, and wings and airframe, acocunt for the damage to a "T."

A plane? Not so much.

Quote:

“The warhead performed as predicted and met all expectations,” said Elmer Lueker, the JASSM payload integrated product team leader in Phantom Works. “After experiencing shock loads as high as 12,000 Gs, there was no deformation of the casing and the fuse timing delay performed to the millisecond.” The warhead struck the thick, reinforced concrete target, penetrated through it and traveled another half mile down range. The clean exit hole it left indicates that it had maintained the desired straight trajectory while traversing the thick target.”
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...8gknXKeDVlnqMC

Crazy Chainsaw 24th January 2020 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965720)
The water jet is probably the biggest red herring you jokers like to flop out on the deck when you're desperate. A water jet, like a bullet, can penetrate hard materials, because it focuses its mass and energy on as tiny a point as possible.

Yes, water can be used to cut steel. When most folks hear this they have no problem believing a plane could slice a building in half. The key they're missing is pressure. Water can only cut steel with the right pressure, and often only with abrasives added to the water. Even then unless the nozzle is very close to the steel, it won't cut it.




https://science.howstuffworks.com/en...uestion553.htm

It is a bogus analogy that exposes your ignorance or you intent to obfuscate.

You just agreed with Nist the preasue at point of impact per Square inch was sufficient for the aluminum to Cut though the steel. Especially since aluminum Oxide was on the outside of the the Aluminum.

Crazy Chainsaw 24th January 2020 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965749)
You have a vivid imagination, comparing a shipping container to the WTC. Missiles are just a delivery system for a bomb, in this case a bunker busting bomb that would continue on long after the airframe disintegrated.



https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-...e-shaped-hole/

The warheads, and wings and airframe, acocunt for the damage to a "T."

A plane? Not so much.

Where I the seismic data and evidence?

Crazy Chainsaw 24th January 2020 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965749)
You have a vivid imagination, comparing a shipping container to the WTC. Missiles are just a delivery system for a bomb, in this case a bunker busting bomb that would continue on long after the airframe disintegrated.



https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-...e-shaped-hole/

The warheads, and wings and airframe, acocunt for the damage to a "T."

A plane? Not so much.


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...8gknXKeDVlnqMC

How do you explain the Fuel air blast?

yankee451 24th January 2020 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 12965752)
You just agreed with Nist the preasue at point of impact per Square inch was sufficient for the aluminum to Cut though the steel. Especially since aluminum Oxide was on the outside of the the Aluminum.

lol

beachnut 24th January 2020 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965749)
You have a vivid imagination, comparing a shipping container to the WTC. Missiles are just a delivery system for a bomb, in this case a bunker busting bomb that would continue on long after the airframe disintegrated.



https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-...e-shaped-hole/

The warheads, and wings and airframe, acocunt for the damage to a "T."

A plane? Not so much.


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...8gknXKeDVlnqMC

projection and off topic

Your missile does not have enough kinetic energy to do much more than be stopped by the WTC shell.

There were no explosives at impact, just Kinetic Energy as seen on the video. You are spreading lies


A study you can't figure out because it has physics, science and math.
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1...3A10%281066%29

Physic you can't grasp, which involves mass and velocity, and the resulting Kinetic Energy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc-zmb3jAgo


The video that is real
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI
Note the jet fuel fireball, from 66,000 pounds of jet fuel - missile can't carry that. There were no blast effects -oops you lied again

The video that is real bad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gpr...ature=youtu.be

Failure, and you don't know why

yankee451 24th January 2020 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 12965754)
How do you explain the Fuel air blast?

Explained already numerous times. Scroll back you'll find it. Or follow any of the links I've posted.

yankee451 24th January 2020 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 12965753)
Where I the seismic data and evidence?

How does the seismic data change the evidence of missile impacts? Wouldn't the authorities that launched the missiles, have thought of providing radar, seismic, and other data to support what they were selling on television?

Crazy Chainsaw 24th January 2020 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965707)
How is a plasma cutter, or a water jet, like a 767? Don't you want to trot out the "straw through the tree during a hurricane" BS too? Pathetic. Grow a brain.

Energy if you don't understand the concept then you flunk elementary physic the building is static the plane has all the energy. You prove you Flunked basic physics the heat on impact alone would have damaged the steel.

yankee451 24th January 2020 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachnut (Post 12965759)
projection and off topic

Everything you say is off topic, and filled with rage and spittle. You're a parody of skeptics, in general.

Axxman300 24th January 2020 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turingtest (Post 12965640)
Just spitballing here, but...maybe 9/11 CTs are the same thing. Maybe the whole thing happened exactly the way the "official story" says, but the PTB decided on a psyop about it to discredit by association the other, real conspiracies they're putting over on us- and you're falling for it, letting them get away with, uh, you know, the really dangerous stuff. Like the Earth really is flat, and chemtrails and HAARP and all that.

I mean, with the sort of paranoia you'd need to have to think that the fact that some people just aren't very smart is evidence for a conspiracy, how would you ever know the difference?

If 9-11 Truth didn't exist the CIA might have invented it to undermine the anti-war movement...which it did. 9-11 Truth makes our war on terror possible because whenever an intelligent debate about our actions in the Gulf arises some moron will chime in with "911 was an inside job" and it kills the discussion every time.

yankee451 24th January 2020 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 12965763)
Energy if you don't understand the concept then you flunk elementary physic the building is static the plane has all the energy. You prove you Flunked basic physics the heat on impact alone would have damaged the steel.

A 767 that spreads its mass and momentum over a wide area, is like a bullet, or a water jet, which focus their mass and energy on as tiny a point as possible to achieve maximum penetration, how, exactly? I mean, you must think you understand it, so please explain it.

Crazy Chainsaw 24th January 2020 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965762)
How does the seismic data change the evidence of missile impacts? Wouldn't the authorities that launched the missiles, have thought of providing radar, seismic, and other data to support what they were selling on television?

You just described how it's your theory you should at least know it.
Yep Iran would really be a great place to find that data, you only have one Earth and sound travels though it.
A bunker Buster bomb would have shown up in Iran, Russia, and China.
On seismic data.

yankee451 24th January 2020 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12965769)
If 9-11 Truth didn't exist the CIA might have invented it to undermine the anti-war movement...which it did. 9-11 Truth makes our war on terror possible because whenever an intelligent debate about our actions in the Gulf arises some moron will chime in with "911 was an inside job" and it kills the discussion every time.

Controlling the opposition since 1947.

Crazy Chainsaw 24th January 2020 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965771)
A 767 that spreads its mass and momentum over a wide area, is like a bullet, or a water jet, which focus their mass and energy on as tiny a point as possible to achieve maximum penetration, how, exactly? I mean, you must think you understand it, so please explain it.

It's focused at point of Impact don't you know any basic physics?

yankee451 24th January 2020 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 12965772)
You just described how it's your theory you should at least know it.
Yep Iran would really be a great place to find that data, you only have one Earth and sound travels though it.
A bunker Buster bomb would have shown up in Iran, Russia, and China.
On seismic data.

And you would expect China and Russia to blow the whistle, why, exactly?

beachnut 24th January 2020 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965771)
A 767 that spreads its mass and momentum over a wide area, is like a bullet, or a water jet, which focus their mass and energy on as tiny a point as possible to achieve maximum penetration, how, exactly? I mean, you must think you understand it, so please explain it.

Like a ping pong ball?


A study you can't figure out because it has physics, science and math.
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1...3A10%281066%29

Physic you can't grasp, which involves mass and velocity, and the resulting Kinetic Energy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc-zmb3jAgo


The video that is real
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI

The video that is real bad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gpr...ature=youtu.be

You keep messing up physics and have no clue why you are wrong -

yankee451 24th January 2020 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 12965777)
It's focused at point of Impact don't you know any basic physics?

Apparently a lot more than you do. The reason no one, from MIT, to Purdue, has calculated the physics between the wing and the column, is because they know basic physics too.

yankee451 24th January 2020 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachnut (Post 12965781)
Like a ping pong ball?


A study you can't figure out because it has physics, science and math.
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1...3A10%281066%29

Physic you can't grasp, which involves mass and velocity, and the resulting Kinetic Energy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc-zmb3jAgo


The video that is real
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI

The video that is real bad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gpr...ature=youtu.be

You keep messing up physics and have no clue why you are wrong -


No. You keep proving that few people are as indoctrinated as military people.

Crazy Chainsaw 24th January 2020 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965774)
Controlling the opposition since 1947.

Your talking about a million bullets even if the plane breaks up each having sufficient energy to penitrate the steel. Especially given the hardness if Alumnum oxide and it's potential to Oxidize at over 2500 degrees C.

yankee451 24th January 2020 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 12965777)
It's focused at point of Impact don't you know any basic physics?

Let's think about this for the moment. In this interaction between a column and the wing, where would you say the impact is focused on? The flat aluminum sheeting, or the protruding steel sides?

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...1-48-16-PM.png

Robin 24th January 2020 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965749)
You have a vivid imagination, comparing a shipping container to the WTC.

You must be confused, I didn't do that.

Now about that question you are avoiding: "How are you going with that explanation of how a cruise missile with airframe largely intact can pass through that little gap that is much too small for a cruise missile to pass through?"

beachnut 24th January 2020 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12964855)
No. This is a much clearer shot from a better perspective. It is the column cladding.


https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...s-1024x640.png

Big lie, your missile wing can't do what you said it could, you have messed up again and lied.

Why do you lie? Flight 175 has the KE of 2093 pounds of TNT, your missile in flight has 17 pounds of TNT, and tiny weak wings with less mass than any of the 767 wings.

You missile wings would barely scratch the WTC shell. The dents were made by a 767.

Physics wins again.

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein

And it shows

your tiny wings are not thick enough to do the damage - darn

yankee451 24th January 2020 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 12965787)
Your talking about a million bullets even if the plane breaks up each having sufficient energy to penitrate the steel. Especially given the hardness if Alumnum oxide and it's potential to Oxidize at over 2500 degrees C.

I appreciate your need to keep muddying the waters, but it doesn't help your case.

Crazy Chainsaw 24th January 2020 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965782)
Apparently a lot more than you do. The reason no one, from MIT, to Purdue, has calculated the physics between the wing and the column, is because they know basic physics too.

No it was simply Irrelevant in the simulation so they did a simplification, your making the same Mistake that Tony Sambozzi made in Missing jolt.
Your mistaking a simulation for a real life event you simply do not understand.
You have to know how the structure of the plane and the structure of the buildings will react based on the energies and connection points involved.

Crazy Chainsaw 24th January 2020 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965797)
I appreciate your need to keep muddying the waters, but it doesn't help your case.

My case Is solid yours is not, you didn't even take into account impact induced heating.

beachnut 24th January 2020 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965784)
No. You keep proving that few people are as indoctrinated as military people.

You keep proving this:
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein

Your prejudice of those in the military is showing, a bias that guides your lies.

Truth remains solid, you lie about 9/11, and can't gain the knowledge to save yourself from spreading really dumb lies.


A study you can't figure out
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1...3A10%281066%29

Physic you can't grasp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc-zmb3jAgo

The video that is real
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI

The video that is real bad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gpr...ature=youtu.be

Who indoctrinated you to lie, and make up the missile fantasy.


How did they fake the 66,000 pounds of jet fuel for the jet fuel fireball?

See the above video, it proves your missiles were not there

How many missiles does it take

Crazy Chainsaw 24th January 2020 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965792)
Let's think about this for the moment. In this interaction between a column and the wing, where would you say the impact is focused on? The flat aluminum sheeting, or the protruding steel sides?

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...1-48-16-PM.png

False it would be dragged across not a strait line.

yankee451 24th January 2020 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12965793)
You must be confused, I didn't do that.

Now about that question you are avoiding: "How are you going with that explanation of how a cruise missile with airframe largely intact can pass through that little gap that is much too small for a cruise missile to pass through?"

It wasn't intact. You are distracting the thread with another red herring.
You say there is a gap behind the still standing cladding, but you have yet to explain how a wing could create the gap without cutting the cladding. The "gap" is easily explained with missile warhead, but not with a plane wing. Desperate men do desperate deeds.

Crazy Chainsaw 24th January 2020 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965807)
It wasn't intact. You are distracting the thread with another red herring.
You say there is a gap behind the still standing cladding, but you have yet to explain how a wing could create the gap without cutting the cladding. The "gap" is easily explained with missile warhead, but not with a plane wing. Desperate men do desperate deeds.

Your asuming the Cladding is cut and not fractured you can't determine the difference without close examination the impact of the fuel would have fractured Caldding. Your Guessing.

beachnut 24th January 2020 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965807)
It wasn't intact. You are distracting the thread with another red herring.
You say there is a gap behind the still standing cladding, but you have yet to explain how a wing could create the gap without cutting the cladding. The "gap" is easily explained with missile warhead, but not with a plane wing. Desperate men do desperate deeds.

Off topic!

Why? You have no clue there was no warhead explosion on 9/11. A warhead can't make the break in the WTC, a 767 did, not a missile.

How does your missile carry 66,000 pounds of jet fuel? It would take over 30 missiles. No missiles seen on 9/11

Are you missiles invisible and magic?

You keep forgetting your thread failed long ago when you posted your terrible analysis of the video!


A study you can't figure out because it has physics, science and math.
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1...3A10%281066%29

Physic you can't grasp, which involves mass and velocity, and the resulting Kinetic Energy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc-zmb3jAgo


The video that is real
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI

The video that is real bad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gpr...ature=youtu.be

You failed, the thread failed when you posted your analysis

yankee451 24th January 2020 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 12965804)
False it would be dragged across not a strait line.

Depends on which "jet" you're taking about. Different angles of impact, but very similar "wrong' damage in the same place. The left wingtip. Do you think the NIST was accurate with their model?

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...wing-burst.png

Crazy Chainsaw 24th January 2020 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965819)
Depends on which "jet" you're taking about. Different angles of impact, but very similar "wrong' damage in the same place. The left wingtip. Do you think the NIST was accurate with their model?

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...wing-burst.png

For a strait on Impact yes not for a glancing angled Blow.
In a glancing angled Blow the wing would not penitrate, because the structure would cause the wing joint to be destroyed and the wing to hinge in toward the Fuselage.
Everything will have an equal and opposite reaction.

Itchy Boy 24th January 2020 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12965657)
Well for example you say that in impact videos you see no visible impact.

I responded that in four or so frames of lossy video of a distant plane colliding with a building you wouldn't expect to see visible shattering.

I gave a number of reasons for this and gave an example of a high frame rate video of a missile, where the airframe and wings would shatter on impact but you don't see the shattering.

Now if you are the truth teller and I am the truth denier then you could respond to that point.

But you didn't. You just went back to saying that you couldn't see any visible shattering.

I didn't see the distant plane and none of your missile videos showed the impact from an angle similar to Hezarkhani's, so they didn't show anything either. I didn't say Hez's vidwo showed no visible 'imact'. I said the impact shows no visible crash physics. Unlike your videos, thwe 'impact of the 2nd plANe at WTC is clearly visible.What is not visible is any damage to the plane or the building. I'll try to post a pic if I can figure out how.s

beachnut 24th January 2020 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12965866)
I didn't see the distant plane and none of your missile videos showed the impact from an angle similar to Hezarkhani's, so they didn't show anything either. I didn't say Hez's vidwo showed no visible 'imact'. I said the impact shows no visible crash physics. Unlike your videos, thwe 'impact of the 2nd plANe at WTC is clearly visible.What is not visible is any damage to the plane or the building. I'll try to post a pic if I can figure out how.s

Because you are not an aircraft crash investigator, and can't do physics.

A study you can't figure out because it has physics, science and math.
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1...3A10%281066%29

Physic you can't grasp, which involves mass and velocity, and the resulting Kinetic Energy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc-zmb3jAgo


The video that is real
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI

The video that is real bad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gpr...ature=youtu.be

You keep messing up physics and have no clue why you are wrong -

the thread is about video, one you can't prove is fake, and in your case the same boat as yankee451 - https://i.imgflip.com/3n4p9r.jpg

You can't do physics, don't understand Radar, and ignore witnesses.

The topic about video, and now it is done because you and yankee451 can't prove they are fake. You never will, yet you will continue posting off topic tripe to support evidence free lies you can't explain.

Itchy Boy 24th January 2020 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Common Potato (Post 12964912)
" So what is the best way to deal with conspiracy theorists, especially those who are not easily dissuaded? Researchers call it the million-dollar question. The first step is to avoid belittling them, Swami says. Diminishing deeply rooted beliefs may backfire, fueling propagators and their followers to shun mainstream explanations even more. “The problem with condemning conspiracy theories is that it plays into the conspiracy theorist’s mind,” he says. “It would entrench their beliefs.” "

https://time.com/5541411/conspiracy-...tic-terrorism/

SHAME

That's a crock of feces. The best way to deal with them is how Metabunk dealt with me a few years ago.
After a lot of back and forth, one of their people, with the intention of proving my assertion wrong, created and posted a diagram that unbeknownst to him at the time, not only supported, but proved my assertion. s(This was about a different event- not 9/11).

When they realized what they had done, his post and all related posts were deleted from the thread. Not only at Metabunk, but as far as I could tell, also deleted from the Waybackmachine.

It was a clear demonstration of what I've said - that you truth deniers can NEVER, under any circumstances concede that a CT is actually true or your reason for being evaporates. Nevertheless, in the end, the stinking liars declared the matter 'debunked'.

beachnut 24th January 2020 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12965902)
That's a crock of feces. The best way to deal with them is how Metabunk dealt with me a few years ago.
After a lot of back and forth, one of their people, with the intention of proving my assertion wrong, created and posted a diagram that unbeknownst to him at the time, not only supported, but proved my assertion. s(This was about a different event- not 9/11).

When they realized what they had done, his post and all related posts were deleted from the thread. Not only at Metabunk, but as far as I could tell, also deleted from the Waybackmachine.

It was a clear demonstration of what I've said - that you truth deniers can NEVER, under any circumstances concede that a CT is actually true or your reason for being evaporates. Nevertheless, in the end, the stinking liars declared the matter 'debunked'.

You offer BS, no evidence, thus you can't debunk anything, you spread bunk.

Yes you posts are void of evidence, thus you can't post at Metabunk, all your junk is BS.

You got it backwards, you have to prove your claim, not the other way around. Like this topic, you can't prove any videos are fake, and never will - you don't have evidence.

All your claims are bunk.

Axxman300 24th January 2020 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965774)
Controlling the opposition since 1947.

They wish.

Axxman300 24th January 2020 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965771)
A 767 that spreads its mass and momentum over a wide area, is like a bullet, or a water jet, which focus their mass and energy on as tiny a point as possible to achieve maximum penetration, how, exactly? I mean, you must think you understand it, so please explain it.

I think people missed this one.

yankee451 24th January 2020 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12965917)
I think people missed this one.

I'm sure they're trying to.

How about the protruding sides of the columns. Wouldn't you say the mass and momentum of the wing was focused on a small point of impact when the rounded edge of the wing struck the sharp, laterally braced protruding steel sides of the columns, as it allegedly impacted them sequentially, one sharp side at a time?

yankee451 24th January 2020 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12965913)
They wish.

That only happens in the movies, huh?

yankee451 24th January 2020 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 12965825)
For a strait on Impact yes not for a glancing angled Blow.
In a glancing angled Blow the wing would not penitrate, because the structure would cause the wing joint to be destroyed and the wing to hinge in toward the Fuselage.
Everything will have an equal and opposite reaction.

Yes, and according to you, despite the fact that one jet struck head-on, and the other one "dragged" the steel to the side, both towers show nearly identical damage in the same place, the left wing tip.

The physical evidence shows something small and not very dense struck the first columns to the left, but as it traveled to the right (equal and opposite!!!!), it became much more dense and much more massive, sharply bending steel columns in a completely different direction than the television jets were allegedly traveling. Either you don't understand equal and opposite reactions, or you are maintaining the jet wings that couldn't even slice all the aluminum sheeting, also changed direction.

The cognitive dissonance must be unbearable.

Crazy Chainsaw 24th January 2020 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965933)
Yes, and according to you, despite the fact that one jet struck head-on, and the other one "dragged" the steel to the side, both towers show nearly identical damage in the same place, the left wing tip.

The physical evidence shows something small and not very dense struck the first columns to the left, but as it traveled to the right (equal and opposite!!!!), it became much more dense and much more massive, sharply bending steel columns in a completely different direction than the television jets were allegedly traveling. Either you don't understand equal and opposite reactions, or you are maintaining the jet wings that couldn't even slice all the aluminum sheeting, also changed direction.

The cognitive dissonance must be unbearable.

It takes very little energy to been that steel your first mistake is not realizing that.

MattNelson 24th January 2020 08:06 PM

"How they Faked the Videos"

Still waiting. 63 collected here.

How did they fake the NBC Chopper4 live shot? Video production expert Ace Baker said it could not have been done. You are not a video production expert, so you cannot answer.

How did Robert Cumins fake his 2 Fuji film negatives of the plane he shot from 14 miles away? I have 50 photos of the 2nd plane. You can't answer this question.

How did the smoking hot plane engine smash into the building at 50 Murray St. and drop parts (all matching a Boeing 767) along its trajectory, including atop 5 WTC, Vesey St., and the Federal Building? Plane parts PDF here (49 MB, 86 pages). You have no answers to these questions.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:13 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.