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)

Itchy Boy 25th January 2020 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12966178)
Finally a proof aliens are real! Nobody will convince me this guy is a human being - even a certifiable one.
This has to be work of SOMETHING from another universe, maybe even another dimension. We have it all wrong, they are here among us and posting on Skeptics Forum!

Ok, smartipants, explain why the people sewing the suits or building the LEM had to know the landings would be faked. Make it good.

beachnut 25th January 2020 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966180)
Ok, smartipants, explain why the people sewing the suits or building the LEM had to know the landings would be faked. Make it good.

You can't show videos are fake, so you switch to moon landing denier.

so you found an error in logic, but we did land on the moon - thus being wrong, still wins, we landed on the moon.

In your case being wrong, you remain wrong... irony

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966156)
It was years ago, I can't remember his name, but he was polite. It was nervousness that turned into anger when it got to the tough questions.
But he never implied they were lying..he was just 'asking questions'.

If their videos were real, there would be no reason to react as they did.

He also called some aircraft experts who told him jumbo jets can't fly at the speeds claimed at sea level.d

The 757 and 767 can fly at the speeds, seen, nothing stops them from going fast as sea level. And you can't show why they can't.

Flight 175 was 590 mph, on video and Radar, proves the planes can go that fast.

I flew my jet over Vmo at 300 to 500 feet with old J-57 engines. Jet engines have the most thrust at sea level, who knew... me

what is your point? Oh, there are those who lie, or don't know...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966169)
... OK. I think ww're done. ...

Yes, you are done, you can't prove any videos are fake. And Radar proves 175 and 11 hit the WTC.

Robin 25th January 2020 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966158)
I said before, none of those videos was at an angle to really see anythingd.
I've seen the 9/11 videos at various resolution. What I posted was what I happened to have on hand. I too wish they were clearer, but regardless, I would expect to see debris start tofall to the ground before the explosion which only happend after the entire plane disappeared.

besides, showing what a cruise missile does to 'prove' what a jumbo jet would do, makes no sense to me.
f

Certainly we would expect there to be debris starting to fall to the ground. The question is, would we expect to see it at this distance and at this resolution?

smartcooky 25th January 2020 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachnut (Post 12966181)
The 757 and 767 can fly at the speeds, seen, nothing stops them from going fast as sea level. And you can't show why they can't.

Flight 175 was 590 mph, on video and Radar, proves the planes can go that fast.

I flew my jet over Vmo at 300 to 500 feet with old J-57 engines. Jet engines have the most thrust at sea level, who knew... me

what is your point? Oh, there are those who lie, or don't know...

He's mistakenly believing that aircraft cannot fly at high speeds at low altitude, because he has heard somewhere in one of his 9/11 twoofer echo chambers that for they cannot achieve high mach numbers at low altitude.

His knowledge of aviation and aeronautical engineering is limited. He doesn't understand that the reason for this is the sound speed gradient is negative with increasing altitude up to about 36,000 feet.

An aircraft flying at sea level, at barometric pressure of 1013.25 mbar, ambient 20ーC at 767 mph is doing close to Mach 1.0
The same aircraft doing the same speed at an altitude of 30,000 feet is doing Mach 1.13 because the speed of sound has dropped to 678 mph

Robin 25th January 2020 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965807)
It wasn't intact.

Largely intact, as I said. The starboard side of the airframe hasn't hit anything yet, the wing would still be there.
Quote:

You are distracting the thread with another red herring.
Questioning how the physical evidence fits your theory is a red herring?
Quote:

You say there is a gap behind the still standing cladding,
There is a gap. Not big enough for a cruise missile to fit through.
Quote:

but you have yet to explain how a wing could create the gap without cutting the cladding.
I have explained, I have drawn diagrams, I have made animations. You haven't responded to or even acknowledged any of it, which is your right. But don't pretend I didn't say it.

Robin 25th January 2020 02:31 AM

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

As I said before, it will start to crush the cladding first, knocking it back, something like this:

https://robinsrevision.files.wordpre...e-17.png?w=320

This is based on a sweep back of 35 degrees and a direction of 12.5 degrees to the left, as in WTC2

Crazy Chainsaw 25th January 2020 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966022)
There are many versions of the video. None show any visible damage until after the plane has...ummm... 'penetrated'. No shattered bits visibly fall to the ground until after the explosion. The steel box columns and 3/4 inch thick spandrels backed by 60 ft of steel and concrete flooring, backed in turn by the massive core columns- hit the plane with the kinetic engergy of 2000+ pounds of TNT. I expect to see a severely damaged aircraft if the video was a depiction of a real event.

You expect plane parts traveling at six hundred miles an hour to stop instantly why?

JSanderO 25th January 2020 04:33 AM

The two planes hit the towers at different angles and seemed to cause similar destruction of the facade. In WTC2 the planes's trajectory was partially through the open office space, and landing hear punched through the northeast corner. AA11's engine was found to the south on Church Street. Other parts from the planes were recovered.

Not all of the plane's parts were destroyed in the collisions.

Denial of the planes hitting the towers is delusional.

turingtest 25th January 2020 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12966152)
Again, it hasn't penetrated anything, except as debris.

You say there is no damage visible, but I can't imagine why you think you would see any damage at that resolution.

Earlier I posted several frames of a cruise missile hitting concrete. You couldn't see any damage there, even though it was closer and higher frame rate

Yet we know that the airframe and wings of that cruise missile must have been shattering as it hit the concrete.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966158)
I said before, none of those videos was at an angle to really see anythingd.
I've seen the 9/11 videos at various resolution. What I posted was what I happened to have on hand. I too wish they were clearer, but regardless, I would expect to see debris start tofall to the ground before the explosion which only happend after the entire plane disappeared.

besides, showing what a cruise missile does to 'prove' what a jumbo jet would do, makes no sense to me.
f

He wasn't posting the video showing what the cruise missile did to prove what a jet could do- he was posting the video to demonstrate what the video could show. No wonder you guys are always so confused- you can't even follow a basic point.

My question would be- on what basis would you "expect to see debris start to fall to the ground before the explosion"? Physics? So far, all I've seen from you in that direction is that you know how to spell the word- you could at least try yankee's "slid like butter" version of it (now that's physics!).

Or maybe you have some other basis for comparison? Do you know of another instance of a video of a jet plane crashing into a skyscraper like the Towers at the speed these did?

"I would expect" would be so much better with some informed basis for the expectation.

Robin 25th January 2020 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12966199)
As I said before, it will start to crush the cladding first, knocking it back, something like this:

https://robinsrevision.files.wordpre...e-17.png?w=320

This is based on a sweep back of 35 degrees and a direction of 12.5 degrees to the left, as in WTC2

In one of many possible scenarios, the structural element of the wing that impacted bends of hits the other side of the steel.

https://robinsrevision.files.wordpre...e-18.png?w=320

Breaks, bounces off

https://robinsrevision.files.wordpre...e-19.png?w=320

However the force has been transmitted to the steel and travels through it causing fractures:

https://robinsrevision.files.wordpre...e-20.png?w=320

Causing the column to break apart:

https://robinsrevision.files.wordpre...e-21.png?w=320

Of course if this is the front spar then there is the rest of the wing to come through and possible cause more damage to this column, or possibly be pulled sideways by the engine.

As I say, just one of many possible scenarios.

The idea that there is some simple formula which can tell us exactly what would happen when a jet crashes into a skyscraper is basically wrong. We can know in general what would happen, but the idea that we can know that all columns are going to get bent in particular ways or that every single piece of cladding must necessarily get completely severed not even leaving one side attached, that is a non-starter.

JSanderO 25th January 2020 06:15 AM

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.

TJM 25th January 2020 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elagabalus
Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966086)
Just an observation - doesn't prove anything, but a chap phoned Hezaekhani and some of the other videographers and spoke to them in a non-accusational manner. Nevertheless, their nervousness was palpable.

Oooh! I didn't see this one before. Which chap? Got any links? Spoke to them in a non-accusational manner, you say? Nervousness or was it anger at some phuktard on the internet calling him a liar?



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.

sts60 25th January 2020 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966164)
Off topic but it needs to be said.

You folk will argue that 400,000 people would have had to be in on the Apollo hoax. but you can't explain why, for example, the ladies sewing the suits, or any other subcontractors would have to be in on it. They didn't.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966164)
They were making real stuff that they believed would take men to the moon and back.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966164)
Not even the guys in the control room at their consoles had to be in on it. They had no way to differentiate between one of their countless simulations and the real thing.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966164)
Only the guys feeding the data to those consoles would have to be in on it.

Nope.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966164)
Yet, desspite pointing this out, believers continue to make the same argument.

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?

pgimeno 25th January 2020 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12965953)
from Hezarkhnai here the right wing has penetrated. No damage visible.How does the wing penetrate the wall without making a hole?

http://treshombres.ca/911/Plane2.png

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.

pgimeno 25th January 2020 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966164)
Off topic but it needs to be said.

You folk will argue that 400,000 people would have had to be in on the Apollo hoax. but you can't explain why, for example, the ladies sewing the suits, or any other subcontractors would have to be in on it. They didn't. They were making real stuff that they believed would take men to the moon and back.

Not even the guys in the control room at their consoles had to be in on it. They had no way to differentiate between one of their countless simulations and the real thing. Only the guys feeding the data to those consoles would have to be in on it.

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?

bknight 25th January 2020 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966171)
They didn't erase any of my other 'bunk'. Only the part where they inadvertently proved the conspiracy in question was real.

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.

yankee451 25th January 2020 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12966248)

Of course if this is the front spar then there is the rest of the wing to come through and possible cause more damage to this column, or possibly be pulled sideways by the engine.

As I say, just one of many possible scenarios.


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

yankee451 25th January 2020 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turingtest (Post 12966240)
He wasn't posting the video showing what the cruise missile did to prove what a jet could do- he was posting the video to demonstrate what the video could show. No wonder you guys are always so confused- you can't even follow a basic point.

My question would be- on what basis would you "expect to see debris start to fall to the ground before the explosion"? Physics? So far, all I've seen from you in that direction is that you know how to spell the word- you could at least try yankee's "slid like butter" version of it (now that's physics!).

Or maybe you have some other basis for comparison? Do you know of another instance of a video of a jet plane crashing into a skyscraper like the Towers at the speed these did?

"I would expect" would be so much better with some informed basis for the expectation.


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

bknight 25th January 2020 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966114)
Where's your source for that assertion? Heres one of many that contradicts your claim. Maybe it's YOU that needs to improve their research skills.

https://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/

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.

yankee451 25th January 2020 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12966194)
There is a gap. Not big enough for a cruise missile to fit through.

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/

yankee451 25th January 2020 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12966248)
Of course if this is the front spar then there is the rest of the wing to come through and possible cause more damage to this column, or possibly be pulled sideways by the engine.

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

beachnut 25th January 2020 10:20 AM

Crazy claims based on insane assumptions for missiles
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12966338)
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

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

bruto 25th January 2020 10:26 AM

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?"

Regnad Kcin 25th January 2020 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12966089)
And once again, for those of you with short attention spans, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, not we who call BS to the claim. The original claim being, on 9/11 mostly hollow aluminum jets burrowed into the ground, bored through a concrete and brick building, and sliced through steel skyscrapers like butter.

You cling to videos and alleged witness accounts while disregarding the physical evidence which proves they're false. If you think you can prove the jets were real, then now's your chance to use the same evidence we all have access to, to prove it.

https://www.logicalfallacies.org/

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.

Itchy Boy 25th January 2020 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 12966219)
You expect plane parts traveling at six hundred miles an hour to stop instantly why?

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.

Itchy Boy 25th January 2020 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 12966384)
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?"

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.

Itchy Boy 25th January 2020 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin (Post 12966396)
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値l tune in again tomorrow. Same bat-crap-crazy time, same bat-crap-crazy channel.

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.

beachnut 25th January 2020 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966413)
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.

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

Regnad Kcin 25th January 2020 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966164)
Off topic but it needs to be said.

You folk will argue that 400,000 people would have had to be in on the Apollo hoax. but you can't explain why, for example, the ladies sewing the suits, or any other subcontractors would have to be in on it. They didn't. They were making real stuff that they believed would take men to the moon and back.

Not even the guys in the control room at their consoles had to be in on it. They had no way to differentiate between one of their countless simulations and the real thing. Only the guys feeding the data to those consoles would have to be in on it.
Yet, desspite pointing this out, believers continue to make the same argument.dd

An Apollo hoaxer? Q置elle surprise.

I知 guessing also JFK for the trifecta.

Itchy Boy 25th January 2020 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12966300)
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.

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

Itchy Boy 25th January 2020 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin (Post 12966425)
An Apollo hoaxer? Q置elle surprise.

I知 guessing also JFK for the trifecta.

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

beachnut 25th January 2020 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966413)
Long shots show the plane in level flight for several miles before impact.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966413)
It's not just that they can't fly safely,

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966413)
it's that the engines can't provide enough thrust to push the plane through the denser air.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966413)
They're designed to achieve those speeds at cruising altitude where the air resistance is several times less that at sea level.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966413)
But I'm not going to argue about the speed.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966413)
I think some parts would bend and break if the speed was even greater than claimed.

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.

sts60 25th January 2020 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin (Post 12966425)
An Apollo hoaxer? Q置elle surprise.

I知 guessing also JFK for the trifecta.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966432)
That and more. the world works a lot differently from what your entrenched beliefs would allow you to see...

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.

beachnut 25th January 2020 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966432)
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

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

Itchy Boy 25th January 2020 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turingtest (Post 12966240)
He wasn't posting the video showing what the cruise missile did to prove what a jet could do- he was posting the video to demonstrate what the video could show. No wonder you guys are always so confused- you can't even follow a basic point.

My question would be- on what basis would you "expect to see debris start to fall to the ground before the explosion"? Physics? So far, all I've seen from you in that direction is that you know how to spell the word- you could at least try yankee's "slid like butter" version of it (now that's physics!).

Or maybe you have some other basis for comparison? Do you know of another instance of a video of a jet plane crashing into a skyscraper like the Towers at the speed these did?

"I would expect" would be so much better with some informed basis for the expectation.

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.

Itchy Boy 25th January 2020 12:19 PM

ddd
Quote:

Originally Posted by sts60 (Post 12966440)
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.

No thanks. Been there, done that.

Itchy Boy 25th January 2020 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12966199)
As I said before, it will start to crush the cladding first, knocking it back, something like this:

https://robinsrevision.files.wordpre...e-17.png?w=320

This is based on a sweep back of 35 degrees and a direction of 12.5 degrees to the left, as in WTC2

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

beachnut 25th January 2020 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966462)
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.

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.

Itchy Boy 25th January 2020 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966473)
Hence some of the cladding should have been seen to fall before the explosion.

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

beachnut 25th January 2020 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966477)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966473)
Hence some of the cladding should have been seen to fall before the explosion.

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:33 PM.

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