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

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...

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

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?

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°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

Largely intact, as I said. The starboard side of the airframe hasn't hit anything yet, the wing would still be there.
Questioning how the physical evidence fits your theory is a red herring?
There is a gap. Not big enough for a cruise missile to fit through.
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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.