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)

Crazy Chainsaw 24th January 2020 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12965571)
A bullet is denser than flesh. A plane is not denser than steel columns and plate. Maybe it's you that can't comprehend physics. The physics involved here is child's play. No math skills needed. The plane can't be seen to break the shell in the Hezarkhani video, nor can the shell be seen to damage the plane. Your personal attacks are ineffeectual, but keep them up when you have nothing else.

What proof do you have the radar data is real? Were you operating the conlsole that day? See, thee problem with the level of proof you and your ilk want is that it's impossible to obtain. None of us were in the planning meetings or got any of the memos. We all have to rely on the information that's given to us by the media, who, in turn have to rely on what's given to them by gov't agencies. Likewise for any independent 'experts' on TV.No official claims can reliably be verified by the public. What we can do, however, is spot inconsistencies and implausibilities in what's given to us.

To the issue at hand, it's implausible that zero damage would be apparent at the moment of impact. Impllausible, that is, to anyone not desperate to cleave to the official story. I know how hard it is to accept a paradigm change because I've been through it. That's why i don't find it necessary toconstantly make personal slurs against you official story stickers.

Pretty sure that I have the physics down on this pretty well.
Water Jet cutting 8 inch stainless steel.
https://youtu.be/lMSGHJ8GJ1A

Crazy Chainsaw 24th January 2020 02:40 PM

Deleted.

Crazy Chainsaw 24th January 2020 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12965571)
A bullet is denser than flesh. A plane is not denser than steel columns and plate. Maybe it's you that can't comprehend physics. The physics involved here is child's play. No math skills needed. The plane can't be seen to break the shell in the Hezarkhani video, nor can the shell be seen to damage the plane. Your personal attacks are ineffeectual, but keep them up when you have nothing else.

What proof do you have the radar data is real? Were you operating the conlsole that day? See, thee problem with the level of proof you and your ilk want is that it's impossible to obtain. None of us were in the planning meetings or got any of the memos. We all have to rely on the information that's given to us by the media, who, in turn have to rely on what's given to them by gov't agencies. Likewise for any independent 'experts' on TV.No official claims can reliably be verified by the public. What we can do, however, is spot inconsistencies and implausibilities in what's given to us.

To the issue at hand, it's implausible that zero damage would be apparent at the moment of impact. Impllausible, that is, to anyone not desperate to cleave to the official story. I know how hard it is to accept a paradigm change because I've been through it. That's why i don't find it necessary toconstantly make personal slurs against you official story stickers.

Density has nothing to do with compressibility!
Da, that is what is at play here compressibility and momentum.
Fluids can not be compressed

Steam Injected Pulling Tractor.
https://youtu.be/w_aDfNehs7c

GlennB 24th January 2020 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12965571)
A bullet is denser than flesh...

You just embarrassed yourself mightily, but probably don't know how.

turingtest 24th January 2020 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12965571)
A bullet is denser than flesh. A plane is not denser than steel columns and plate. Maybe it's you that can't comprehend physics. The physics involved here is child's play. No math skills needed. The plane can't be seen to break the shell in the Hezarkhani video, nor can the shell be seen to damage the plane. Your personal attacks are ineffeectual, but keep them up when you have nothing else.

What proof do you have the radar data is real? Were you operating the conlsole that day? See, thee problem with the level of proof you and your ilk want is that it's impossible to obtain. None of us were in the planning meetings or got any of the memos. We all have to rely on the information that's given to us by the media, who, in turn have to rely on what's given to them by gov't agencies. Likewise for any independent 'experts' on TV.No official claims can reliably be verified by the public. What we can do, however, is spot inconsistencies and implausibilities in what's given to us.

To the issue at hand, it's implausible that zero damage would be apparent at the moment of impact. Impllausible, that is, to anyone not desperate to cleave to the official story. I know how hard it is to accept a paradigm change because I've been through it. That's why i don't find it necessary toconstantly make personal slurs against you official story stickers.

You keep using that word; I do not think it means, etc.

turingtest 24th January 2020 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12965366)
Truth deniers won't change either, for reason's I've touche on earlier.
Interesting and ironic that all the same things can be said of you truth deniers.
Re rockets can't work in a vacuum - some peopdle get some things wrong. That doesn't mean they're wrong about everything.
Flat Earth by the way is not a conspiracy theory. It's another psy-op to discredit other theories by association. Sad that so many have fallen for it,but again, just because someone believes the Earth is flat or that rockets don't work in space doesn't automatically mean they're wrrong about 9/11.

The reason people fall for Flat Earth is that they've discovered that we have indeed been lied to about many Big Things, coupled with the fact that the FE progenitors have provided compelling evidence for itd, though not convincing in my opinion.

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?

yankee451 24th January 2020 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12965007)
Well of course they won't change, they are like people who claim that rockets can't work in a vacuum, or people who claim they have a theory that will take the place of General Relativity or that the Earth is flat.

They all have a similar MO. The point is not to change their minds, the point is to understand something of the psychology.

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."

Itchy Boy 24th January 2020 03:24 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

Does all the water go through the steel with no splashback? Does the jumbo jet provide as continuous stream liike the water jet? Would a single drop of water cut through the steel? Nice try, though.

Robin 24th January 2020 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12965366)
Truth deniers won't change either, for reason's I've touche on earlier.

.

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.

The Common Potato 24th January 2020 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12965571)

What proof do you have the radar data is real?


I have no proof that my mother wasn't a Boltonian crack whore hooker and that my father wasn't Stanley Matthews, but I tend to accept that my birthday certificate is correct and that my mum was a civil servant.

Crazy Chainsaw 24th January 2020 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12965655)
Does all the water go through the steel with no splashback?

Yes if the momentum is sufficient, no to atoms of any substance can occupy the same space at the same time the one with less energy will move out of the way of the one who the higher energy value.

beachnut 24th January 2020 03:28 PM

Physics, what 9/11 truth can't comprehend given the answers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12965571)
A bullet is denser than flesh. A plane is not denser than steel columns and plate. Maybe it's you that can't comprehend physics. The physics involved here is child's play. No math skills needed. The plane can't be seen to break the shell in the Hezarkhani video, nor can the shell be seen to damage the plane. Your personal attacks are ineffeectual, but keep them up when you have nothing else.

What proof do you have the radar data is real? Were you operating the conlsole that day? See, thee problem with the level of proof you and your ilk want is that it's impossible to obtain. None of us were in the planning meetings or got any of the memos. We all have to rely on the information that's given to us by the media, who, in turn have to rely on what's given to them by gov't agencies. Likewise for any independent 'experts' on TV.No official claims can reliably be verified by the public. What we can do, however, is spot inconsistencies and implausibilities in what's given to us.

To the issue at hand, it's implausible that zero damage would be apparent at the moment of impact. Impllausible, that is, to anyone not desperate to cleave to the official story. I know how hard it is to accept a paradigm change because I've been through it. That's why i don't find it necessary toconstantly make personal slurs against you official story stickers.

The engines are as dense and made of stronger alloys of metal. But then you ignore the engines. Sorry, you continue to believe in fantasy and you can't do physics to save your fantasy.
It is not a density issue, it is a physics issue. While it is easier to use a knife to cut something, and a feather would have problems, the fact is the aircraft has mass, and the mass has kinetic energy. Double the mass, double the kinetic energy - double the velocity, quadruple the kinetic energy - A concept you can't grasp due to some problem with learning.

Radar data is real, and you can't refute it or explain how you could fake it. You are evidence free paranoid and gullible.

Radar is real, video is real and your failed physics is real.

Dense does not matter, you still can't do physics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI
You can't prove this is fake, and you can't do physics. A big toolbox of can't for 9/11 truth.

https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1...3A10%281066%29
Paper explains what it takes to enter the WTC with an aircraft, you will not comprehend - you have to ignore science and facts, and prefer to make up your lies based on paranoia and ignorance.

Dense, you have no idea what physics is.

OMG, you are now claiming a Ping Pong ball is more dense than wood?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc-zmb3jAgo
OMG, you are right, but when we increase the velocity, the more dense wooden laminate paddle breaks, and leaves a shape of a ping pong ball, just like 175 leaves a shape of a 767.

Physics, it is what you have no practical knowledge of and you rejoice in the ignorance and make up fantasy lies.

Got Physics?
https://i.imgflip.com/3n4og7.jpg
Nope you got WOO

Crazy Chainsaw 24th January 2020 03:29 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.

But there is Evidence of physical contact the ignition of the Aluminum dust.

Crazy Chainsaw 24th January 2020 03:32 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."

Might I remind you you haven't presented a theory that is realistic in this universe.

Crazy Chainsaw 24th January 2020 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12965655)
Does all the water go through the steel with no splashback? Does the jumbo jet provide as continuous stream liike the water jet? Would a single drop of water cut through the steel? Nice try, though.

With high enough energy Values even Gases penitrate and Cut Steel.

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

beachnut 24th January 2020 03:42 PM

can't prove video is fake, spread lies and evidence free claims
 
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."

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.

Leftus 24th January 2020 03:44 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

That's clearly Hard water. If they used a water softener, it wouldn't stand a chance.

curious cat 24th January 2020 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaddon (Post 12965113)
And in a dive?

Not sure if I understand your question, but will try to answer anyway :-).
It is absolutely irrelevant if the speed is achieved by the trust of the engines or by dive. The aircraft can either handle the particular speed or not. Stressing again: it is IAS that counts. The max speed for B676 in its tech specs is 913 km/h. As the specs are meant to give idea about flight times from A to B, this is TAS and safe to achieve at 30,000 ft. There is an empiric formula - 2% per 1,000 feet to convert TAS to IAS and it returns max. IAS for B767 less than 600 km/h. It is just a rough guesstimate, but even then it is obvious, the alleged 850 km/h TAS (at sea level it equals IAS) of the Pentagon plane speed was way over the design speed. I wouldn't be surprised it the plane was already becoming to break apart at the point of impact.
Truthers are using this argument as a "proof" plane couldn't hit Pentagon at this speed. They are ignoring that there are many examples of similar overspending with happy ending. For instance, the famous "sonic" 747 China Airlines 006 I mentioned earlier is still flying - with a few new parts like horizontal stabiliser, landing gear doors and wings permanently bent upwards by 15 cm...

Leftus 24th January 2020 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12965571)
What proof do you have the radar data is real? Were you operating the conlsole that day? See, thee problem with the level of proof you and your ilk want is that it's impossible to obtain. None of us were in the planning meetings or got any of the memos. We all have to rely on the information that's given to us by the media, who, in turn have to rely on what's given to them by gov't agencies. Likewise for any independent 'experts' on TV.No official claims can reliably be verified by the public. What we can do, however, is spot inconsistencies and implausibilities in what's given to us.

Clearly, you've got as much experience in Government work as you've an understanding in physics. If there were memos, they would have been made public. Not everyone working in the Government is completely soulless. You want implausible? A large, covert, EXPENSIVE, operation to kill US Citizens on US Soil. By people (military) who have taken an oath to protect and defend the US.

I have more respect for the generals of the various branches, the colonels under them, who would at least protested this attack. Not to mention the civilian workers of various agencies, who have worked long and hard to climb the ranks, to not blow a whistle. How many sociopaths do you think are employed in the US federal government?

Crazy Chainsaw 24th January 2020 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leftus (Post 12965680)
That's clearly Hard water. If they used a water softener, it wouldn't stand a chance.

In a way you are correct they add Aluminum Oxide particles to the water to help keep the Cut strait, the Aluminum Oxide being almost as hard as Diamonds. That Though just helps keep the Cut strait and true.

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.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:32 PM.

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