The "collision" was not a simple "interface" interaction.

Just like when you use a hose... it supplies a stream of water. The parts of the plane, its contents kept interacting... after the initial one. Both the plane parts and the bulling parts were CHANGED their geometry over time until the plane's bits had passed into the building without resistance. FEA is likely not powerful enough to model this.

I remember. Some Canuck twat named Jeff Hill tracked down Micheal Hezarkhani to his place of business - he is / was a diamond merchant in Los Angeles. A colossal anus and overflowing douchebag, Hill repeatedly harassed Mr. Hezarkhani over the phone until he sternly yet politely told Hill to go **** himself, or something to that affect.

Ever the towering intellect, Hill took that as proof of Mr. Hezarkhani being in on "Teh Conspiracy".

There was video of the conversation online years ago but now searches only turn up dead links or other truthers swimming in Hill's wake. Perhaps if we ask our no-planers friends nicely, one of them might pumpitout.

No, not every one of the roughly 400,000 people involved in Apollo would have been able to discern a fake. Only part of that group. ETA: Plus a bunch of other people, the number varying according to your specific assertions.

If it was real, why specifically wouldn’t it work?

Let me take a wild guess: you’ve never been in a simulation in the MCC, correct?

Nope.

You seem to believe Apolllo was a hoax of some sort. Why, specifically?

And what is your evidence that the vehicles and men did not perform the missions as described?

ETA: also, what is your evidence for whatever was required to be faked... being faked?

Would you like to start a thread in the parent conspiracy forum one level up from here?

Why do you think that the gap created by the wing should be visible in that picture, if the spaces between WTC columns, which are similarly spaced, are not? The video is just too low resolution to make heads or tails from it.

Still, I see a darkening in the area where the wings would be.

How many are these?

How many people would it take to fake the passenger manifest which was the first lead into the identities of the hijackers?

How many people would it take to fake the videos of the airport cameras? What about the airport guy who confronted Atta? Is he in on it too? Or was that an actor? Is that actor in on it too? If so, is his face the same one that was published of Atta?

The car was found later in the parking lot. How many people did that involve?

Many people at the Pentagon worked in the cleanup. Several of them have reported seeing human remains, or a black box. Many of these remains were later matched to AA77 passengers. How many people did it take to fake all that?

Personal effects of the victims of AA11 and UA175 were identified and returned to their families. How many people does that part take?

The families of the passengers of the flight lost relatives. How many people does it take to get rid of said relatives who, according to the manifest, were in the plane?

How many people does it take to doctor all 63 videos and make them public? At least the 63 people involved who made them public, don't you agree?

How many people who saw the explosion had to be silenced in order to muffle them from speaking out and saying "that's not what I saw"?

How many people would it take to plant scattered plane parts on the streets of Manhattan, and how did they do this without being seen?

I could go on and on and on. Yes it's a hell of a lot of people that need to be involved. Just pretending that the 63 people who presented the videos are in on it, is insane. You really haven't thought this through, have you?

You didn't/haven't proven anything by posting links to videos describing how "it could be done". You need to prove that it was done and to do that you need to ignore all of the physical evidence. That would makes your belief incorrect.

So if I get this right, you're saying a wing spar, which is designed for vertical loads, cut through the steel and all but one piece of cladding.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...front-spar.png

Fortunately, for the sake of sanity, the equal and opposite reaction of the lateral impacts eliminates the head on impact of a jet.

OBL(UBL) in fact did not plan the 9/11 events, but he did finance the operation planned by KSM, who recruited/trained/assigned the 19 that carried out the attacks. You really need to get your facts from other places than CTs.

How do you figure? The columns were 14 inches wide. The warheads, the AGM-86 D has a 14 inch warhead, and the AGM-158 has a 12 inch warhead. Using the known measurements of the columns, the warheads of either of these missiles could do the deed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-86_ALCM

http://www.airforce-technology.com/p...ndoff-missile/

By the way, for your explanation to be correct, the official explanation must be incorrect. Why do you think the engine would "pull" the wing, when the wing was disintegrated by the steel as it penetrated it? By the time the wing tip struck, it would no longer be attached to the wing.

You are contradicting your own story.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...ighlighted.png

Crazy claims based on insane assumptions for missiles
 

You failed, your analysis failed... why you are off topic again

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


Darn, why can't you physics?

https://i.imgflip.com/3n4p9r.jpg

I could see a certain point in pointing out that a plane can't fly above a certain speed safely at sea level, but what happens if you're planning to crash it? As you careen down out of the sky, does an invisible hand come up out of the earth and say "slow down there, pilgrim?"

Just scanning the thread for a few chuckles to start the day.

The hilited bit above? Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!

Ha Ha!

Ha!

I’ll tune in again tomorrow. Same bat-crap-crazy time, same bat-crap-crazy channel.

B ecause the lighter parts hitting the steel columns are encountering an equalresistive force. What the mathematicians here fail to acknowledge is their calculation of the kinetic energy supposes the plane is a solid object like a brick.
ie - the plane weighs X and is travelling at velocity Y.

The engines and landing gear carry more kinetic energy than the relatively flimsy fuselage and wingtips. Yet the entire plane is 'swallowed' uniformly.

I don't buy it, and never will. I'm done trying to explain the obvious. Believe whatever you want.

Long shots show the plane in level flight for several miles before impact. It's not just that they can't fly safely, it's that the engines can't provide enough thrust to push the plane through the denser air. They're designed to achieve those speeds at cruising altitude where the air resistance is several times less that at sea level. But I'm not going to argue about the speed. I think some parts would bend and break if the speed was even greater than claimed.

According to your logic then, I can claim I have a 3 headed Martian in my basement, but have no burden of proof. Instead, you have the burden to prove I don't have a Martian.

You make this up. the engines have their most thrust at sea level and a clean 757/767 quickly accelerates at sea level well beyond Vmo. And can exceed Vd, and make it to 1.2 Vd (504 knots) in 20 to 30 seconds.

Flight 77 went from 300 knots to 483.5 knots in less than 30 seconds when the terrorist pilot set the throttles to 100 percent. Thus you are informed, you are wrong.

In addition, you can't prove a jet can't past max speeds at sea level, you will not provide the data, the thrust, and the drag equations.

You can't do physics, and you can't do aero engineering.

Flight 11 hit at Vd, a flight tested speed.
Flight 175 hit at 590, in a decent, even easier to exceed limit speeds.
Flight 77, 300 to 483.5 knots in 20 to 30 seconds at 100 percent near sea level.

What is your point?
You are so full of BS, you don't do aero and 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 and yankee451 can't prove a video is fake, never will

An Apollo hoaxer? Q’uelle surprise.

I’m guessing also JFK for the trifecta.

No, I'm pointing out the lack of physical evidence of a 'crash'. The video showing how it could be done was in response to the question of how it could be done. I didn't post it a proof of fakery. The proof, for the umpteenth time is in the lack of physics.
No doubt, even if I provided proof that would satisfy you lot that the video was faked, you would make some excuse for it so you could cling to your belief 9/11 happened as reported. d

That and more. the world works a lot differently from what your entrenched beliefs would allow you to see.

I suppose you believe the 'magic bullet' theory. I'd like to hear your explanation of the physics involved there

Which plane was level? Does not matter, the engines can accelerate the clean aircraft to 500 knots. Where is your math?

So? now comes the stuff you make up based on ignorance.

Proof? Got Proof? No, you made this up. Yes, the air is denser, but the thrust is at the greatest as sea level, and the plane is clean, and can go 500 knots with engines at 100 percent. You can't provide the math and aero to back your failed opinion.

Yes, the air is denser - but the engines can do it.

So? Actually, the KIAS goes down at high altitude, the KTAS goes up usually.

lol, you just gave an argument, but you are right, it was really an opinion, and you are not able to argue, you have no useful knowledge to make an argument on speed.

So?

Not enough thrust? Flight 77, near sea level, goes from 300 knots to 483.5 in less than 30 seconds. Terrorist pilot proves you can't do Aero engineering.

No wonder you and yankee451 can't prove videos fake, you guys don't know anything about the subjects required to investigate 9/11.

So, would you like to respond to my post discussing your Apollo claims? We can start a thread in the parent conspiracy forum one level up.

Not wonder your posts are removed at metabunk - evidence free opinions, and off topic

You can't prove any videos are fake, and know little about aero and physics

The truth = https://i.imgflip.com/3n4p9r.jpg


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

The analysis is terrible
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gpr...ature=youtu.be

This is getting tiresome and repetetive. You folk don't believe the impact videos are fake. I get it. Nothing will satisfy you folk as I learned with my Metabunk experience.

ddd No thanks. Been there, done that.

Hence some of the cladding should have been seen to fall before the explosion.

Yes, because the videos are real, your claims are fantasy. You offer no evidence, you bring opinions. No proof.

Like aircraft speed, you repeat failed tag lines from 9/11 truth like a parrot, and dismiss real evidence like Radar. Claim everything is fake, and not able to prove anything.

Tiresome, it take no effort for you to make up a lie. It takes effort to do the work and find your claims are BS.

ETA: And thanks Robin for being one of the only ones here to show adult behaviour.
It's in precious short supply here.

Why do you spread lies and fantasy? Mocking the murder of thousands with fantasy lies - adult behavior, spreading lies.

How do you know it did not fall? You keep making up reasons to support a fantasy and offer no evidence, and ignore evidence.

We're still waiting for you and Yankee to prove the WTC was, in fact, destroyed.

I'm sorry but if we have to play by your rules you two need to prove that the Twin Towers are in fact gone and not hidden by a Reptilian cloaking device.

Then you need to prove than anyone in Afghanistan and Iraq has died and that those wars were not filmed by Jerry Bruckheimer.

Your rules, I'm making the claim that these things are now the truth...Prove me wrong.:D

Grow up!

Well, it’s your time, after all; if you don’t want to use some of it to defend your Apollo claims, fine, but those claims remain unsupported. I will only note that your characterization of the controllers on console not being able to tell a faked mission from simulations bears no resemblance to reality. Nor does your characterization of who would be required to be “in on it”.

Well there are millions of people who saw the attacks on live coverage world wide, thousands of people who witnessed the attacks directly, thousands who were injured as a direct or indirect result of attacks, and thousands of people who died in the attacks who had some level of communication before their deaths providing insight regarding their nature.

Forget that video footage was captured from every angle by thousands of people with camcorders and news outlets, you have limitless numbers of other impasses to your narrative, but the best argument I've seen you come up with to refute that is:

Which doesn't pass the smell test. I've seen this video fakery argument pressed for 15 years. It hasn't changed in the slightest.

What is an "equalresistive force" (other than a bogus pseudo-physics thing you just made up)?

"resistive force" is usually drag or friction.

What you fail to acknowledge is that you suppose the building is a solid object like a brick.

In Physics we talk about the mass of an object not its weight, and speed is a scalar variable, not a vector. Also, we use SI units. The correct terminology would be

...the plane has a mass of m and is moving at velocity v

At the speed these aircraft were travelling, and with the relative hollowness of the building (these kinds of buildings are over 90% air) that is exactly what I would expect to see.

Your ignorance of physics and mathematics, and your personal incredulity are not evidence.

SO, what you're saying is, "we all saw it on TV, so that proves it must be real."

The mostly hollow spaces in the aluminum jet's wings are filled with jet fuel.

With all the tech involved, and their ability to warp minds, why didn't the PTB simply just hire Osama bin Laden? Or make the terrorists think that they were talking to Osama bin Laden? Maybe they could have substituted a fake Osama bin Laden for a real one? Or bought some planes and had them painted up in United Airlines/American Airlines livery at Area 51?

All much easier than your implausible scenario.

The thread is about proving the video is fake. When thousands of people saw it live, how did they fake it? You offer no proof, you repeat "saw it on TV", and think you presented evidence.

On 9/11, yes, it proves planes. Then you confirm the planes with Radar, and gee, which aircraft in the USA did not land at an airport.

This is so easy, it is amazing you can't grasp reality, and have to make up lies.

Can you prove any video was fake in real time, or after recorded? NO

How do it know?

Thousands saw the attacks in person, or were directly impacted by it in other forms. You apparently forget that one significant problem with your case.

I am ignoring the technically illiterate gibberish above and concentrating only on the blatant nonsense contradicting the evidence:

There was nothing uniform about individual parts of the plane penetrating the building. One of the engines has been found a few streets away from the impact. It obviously broke of its pod (as it is designed to do) and continued thru the building much faster than the rest of the plane and exited on the other side still with enough speed to cover a few hundred meters. Other parts of lower density either stayed trapped in the building or fell down much closer.
All exactly like anybody with a basic knowledge of highschool physic would anticipate. But we know you are not one of them...

If I was saying that I would have written that.

I am saying what I [i]actually wrote[/quote].

That large piece of aircraft grade aluminium alloy that you showed, travelling at 800 kph carries quite a good deal of kinetic energy. I know that comes as a surprise to a mo-planer, but it is true.

The fact that it breaks upon impact doesn't change the fact that this energy has been transferred to the column.

So, even after the spar has snapped and the remaining pieces have bounced off or travelled on past, the column continues.fracturing.

The cladding, a separate piece of metal with different properties and not directly attached to the column will behave differently under that impact.

There is no necessary reason why the cladding will be severed, although it probably will.

So what has happened to the starboard side of the airframe and the starboard wing, which have not impacted anything yet and therefore have not shattered so far?

So you can't prove the WTC was destroyed?

Err no, - attempting to reverse the burden of proof is a staple of Conspiracy theorists when they have been cornered. That is not how burden of proof works.

That four aeroplanes were hijacked by terrorists and three of them were flown into buildings is an established fact. This fact is supported by, among other things

1. First hand observations by thousands of witnesses who saw the planes fly into the buildings
2. Four planes took off from airports on 9/11 but never arrived at their destinations
3. Some of the passengers on those aircraft were able to make phone calls to news agencies and loved ones
4. All of the passengers on those planes have disappeared, and the DNA of many of them has been identified at the crash sites
5. All of the aircraft wreckage at all four crash sites were only from the missing airliners.

All of the above amounts to what is known as"consilience". You claim that these airliners did not exist and that it was missiles that impacted the Pentagon, the Towers and the crash site at Stoney Creek. The burden of proof is on you to account for all of the above. This amounts to more that just saying "it was all faked". You have to show HOW it was faked, WHO did the faking.

If you think the aircraft wreckage was planted, how was it planted without a single witness seeing anything, and where did the wreckage originally come from?

If you think the passengers' DNA evidence was faked, who faked it and how did they do that without the regular DNA technicians knowing about it?

Where are the missing passengers?

Where are the missing planes?

Neither you nor yankee451 have posted any physics in support of your contentions.

Show me the physics of what you think we should have seen in lossy video of a distant object.

I can see nothing in any of the videos that is inconsistent with the physics of a plane crash.

Well no, that’s not my logic.

There has long been an investigative and scientific consensus on the various aspects of 9/11. The findings are not arbitrary or based on say so but supported by all manner of evidence and analysis. Since this is so, it is considered the null. Any challenge to parts or all of the null therefore takes on the burden of proof.

Ferraris are made at the Ferrari factory in Maranello, Italy. It’s well established to be true; it’s the null. If anyone wants to claim that they’re actually screwed together inside the laundromat behind Marge Butler’s of Kalamazoo, the burden of proof is theirs.

The current, conventional wisdom re: Martians, three-headed or otherwise, is that they don’t exist. As well, two hijacked jetliners were crashed into the twin towers. Claim otherwise? Support your claim.

Did you know that in Earths gravitational field objects accelerate downwards at 32' per second per second. So a falling object will travel downward 16' in 1 second.

The whole plane minus a few parts was inside the building in .2 seconds. The wings only took .04 seconds to penetrate the building.


So how far should these panels have fallen before the explosion. Show us the math.

I corrected this image for you. No need to thank me. Feel free to use it any time you have the need to post more of your stupid drivel.


https://i.imgur.com/xjYkctl.jpg







Well that kinda explains your bent flanges and the cladding wedged behind the wing skin fragment on WTC2 doesn't it.

Thanks, whereas one jet "dragged" the steel to the right, the other didn't, yet both left almost identical damage.

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...ectories-1.jpg