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)

bknight 31st January 2020 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leftus (Post 12973197)
Dude, he has conjecture based on years of assumptions! That beats your actual experience.

But yes. The missile system I worked on was transitioning from tube based to solid state back in the late 80s, early 90's. The main reasons for this was that tubes worked, it was battle tested, and those logistic lines are long.

In my current experience working for the federal government, we are working with state of the art 1960's tech trying to upgrade it into, hopefully, early 2000s software.

OMG you're one of them!!! ;)

Leftus 31st January 2020 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12973230)
OMG you're one of them!!! ;)

Shilling for the man since 2009.

Regnad Kcin 31st January 2020 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Common Potato (Post 12972900)
"Secret military tech," will be the answer.

Sharks with frickin’ video editing skillz.

Hellbound 31st January 2020 10:55 AM

Just to second others on military tech:

It tends to be more robust (hardened against EMP or radiation) and more reliable compared to similar civilian versions, but not more advanced (and often less except a few specific areas).

For example, the Army was still using Windows XP when Windows 10 came out. It was tested, the configuration was hardened and customized a LOT more than you’d see civilian side, but it was old. Similar on the hardware: older, but well-tested.

Computers were my main specialty, but you see the same in other equipment too. Heck, the premier example of the military’s “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” mindset is probably the M-2 (which ain’t broke, it does the breaking :) )


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Common Potato 31st January 2020 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12972920)
In my lengthy military experience, I have found that the "tech" in the military has often lagged behind that in the private sector. For example, in the 1970s civilian airliners were routinely using inertial navigation systems - our C-130Ks were still using an AN/APN70 LORAN-C !! (Oh, and so were the US Navy and USAF C-130s)

Sheeple911eleventy1!11. Nano beyonce (I like that typo!) secret military tech!

Elagabalus 31st January 2020 11:34 AM

Commie Military tech

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

Leftus 31st January 2020 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hellbound (Post 12973351)
For example, the Army was still using Windows XP when Windows 10 came out. It was tested, the configuration was hardened and customized a LOT more than you’d see civilian side, but it was old. Similar on the hardware: older, but well-tested.

Well, my civilian agency only recently completed the change over to Win10, 64bit. There were a ton of legacy programs that had to be updated to work in a 64 bit environment. I'm pretty sure we were one of the many agencies paying MS to keep security updates going for XP while we converted.

The laptop / desktop and server hardware, for the most part, was current. But the software interface was, and still is, emulated to be something 1960s.

There are some systems, payroll as an example, in which I have to use IE11. It refuses Edge. Being a government drone, I don't have any other choice in browsers.

But as you said, there is a lot of not broken / nothing to fix thinking. If it weren't for the fact that the programmers of our oldest system are, as I call them, the greybeards, and on a dead language nobody is teaching anymore, we are slowly moving to something modern and being taught. So, YEAH, Proactive!

The Common Potato 31st January 2020 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elagabalus (Post 12973399)
Commie Military tech

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

I can see where you are coming from. My first computer was an Amstrad 1640. Mr Sir Lord Sugar is an (((entrepreneur))). Such is the evil that I was given a 30MB HDD for the price of a 20MB drive. There is no stopping these people. It all makes sense, now.

yankee451 31st January 2020 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wowbagger (Post 12972519)
Forget the nitty gritty details, for a sec....

There would need to be TEAMS of artists making these layers all look realistic and consistent, and several LEVELS of TV producers to make sure it got out on time, to be considered "live" TV. That's already hundreds of people who would know something nefarious is going on.

It's NOT impossible for that to happen. But, I think it's simply stupid.

The challenge I have for you, is to explain how faking airplane collisions to this level is SMARTER than getting far fewer people to hijack real planes.


Apparently what you think is possible, and what was actually done, are different things.

If planes could do it, then missiles wouldn't be needed. If planes did do it, then the damage would be consistent with it. Since in the real world planes can't do such things, they were limited to what weapons could accomplish it.

They didn't use planes for a host of reasons, explained here:

Why They Didn't Use Planes

Leftus 31st January 2020 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12973669)
Apparently what you think is possible, and what was actually done, are different things.
Why They Didn't Use Planes

There is a problem when you clearly state that you have zero expertise in anything related, missile tech, material science, science in general, government and military and the cite someone as or even less educated as you as proof you are right. The evidenced linked? All starts with "suppose" It's wild ass conjecture of the Highest order. Which I guess makes him smarter than you, since no real statements of fact, nothing to check against reality. Just vague "the media was in on it" without any substantive proof.


Suppose just for a second, the media wasn't in on it. Then what?

Reread your first sentence. Apply it to yourself.

beachnut 31st January 2020 04:20 PM

Insane no planer Gerard Holmgren used to support insane missile fantasy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12973669)
Apparently what you think is possible, and what was actually done, are different things.

If planes could do it, then missiles wouldn't be needed. If planes did do it, then the damage would be consistent with it. Since in the real world planes can't do such things, they were limited to what weapons could accomplish it.

They didn't use planes for a host of reasons, explained here:

Why They Didn't Use Planes

It gets worse, the terrorists were real pilots, and it is easy to fly heavy jets. Flying is easy, landing and takeoff harder, landing and taking off in bad weather harder, and flying the weather (can't see out) hardest when doing a complex approach procedure.

You posted the dumbest essay on why planes that were used, were not used. Only super gullible people would believe this claptrap you posttest from Gerard Holmgren. His paper is a string of idiotic nonsense.

Gerard Holmgren seems to be insane. His claims and fantasy are insane.

For people like Gerard Holmgren who can't do physics to figure out the 767 did do the damage at the WTC, all that remains is delusional evidence free rant and baseless speculation based on ignorance of the subjects needed to comprehend the Complex Plot, ...
Complex Plot
1. Take planes
2. Crash planes

I thought your ideas were crazy, Gerard Holmgren is worse, he has no clue the WTC collapsed as they did, and has no clue how easy it is to fly a jet.

Your missiles don't have enough kinetic energy for the thin wings to do what you claim the winges did.

Your video analysis is bad.

You failed at the second post, and now quibble with insane paper by Gerard Holmgren, a failed 9/11 truth nut.


Gerard requested in 2007 the removal of all his 9/11 articles from the web. Oops, he got sane before he died. Now idiots have republished his fantasy work.

curious cat 31st January 2020 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12973669)
Apparently what you think is possible, and what was actually done, are different things.

If planes could do it, then missiles wouldn't be needed. If planes did do it, then the damage would be consistent with it. Since in the real world planes can't do such things, they were limited to what weapons could accomplish it.

They didn't use planes for a host of reasons, explained here:

Why They Didn't Use Planes

I am surprised the perps didn't use the services of the genius who wrote this lunatic pamphlet! He is the one with a perfect plan! :D

One lapse of logic that hit me particularly hard:
They wouldn't use remote controlled planes because rescue workers etc could find and recognise the revealing parts. Well... obviously the same people are supposed to be stupid enough not to identify parts of a missile! There is more, too many to list.

JSanderO 31st January 2020 05:49 PM

They used planes.. nothing suspicious about the impact damage.
Case closed

Robin 31st January 2020 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12973669)
Apparently what you think is possible, and what was actually done, are different things.

If planes could do it, then missiles wouldn't be needed. If planes did do it, then the damage would be consistent with it.

And the damage is consistent with a collision by an airliner.

Robin 31st January 2020 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12973669)

They didn't use planes for a host of reasons, explained here:

Why They Didn't Use Planes

OK, lets see:

Quote:

This immediately splits into two sub-choices 1) Pilot them with suicide pilots
2) Remote control them.
The problem with the first choice is obvious and I think most people on this
list have already accepted the absurdity and the monstrous difficulties of
such a scenario, so I won't go into them here.
Big evasion right here.

Apparently it is easier to fool the whole world than it is to fool a handful of Islamic fanatics. Who knew?

TJM 31st January 2020 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12973669)
They didn't use planes for a host of reasons, explained here:<link to steaming pile deleted by BS filter>

Aside from all the other glaring inaccuracies and omissions which are always at the forefront of any no-planer hallucinatory scribblings, This one is special because it dosen't simply glance over the population of one of the world's largest cities - it ignores it entirely. During the height of the morning commute, no less.

Millions of eyes cast skyward, watching WTC 1 burn. Millions. Sure, not all were in position to see 175 crash and the vast majority did not get a reporter's mic shoved in their faces.

But to make no mention of them at all?

Thanks for the laugh.

Axxman300 31st January 2020 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12973669)
Apparently what you think is possible, and what was actually done, are different things.

You need to reverse this. What is actually possible is what happened (hijacked planes crashed into the WTC, Pentagon, and Shanksville), and what YOU think happened (fake video, cruise missiles, fake witnesses, smoke machines, no dead bodies) is something you have made no competent effort to prove.

Quote:

If planes could do it, then missiles wouldn't be needed.
Planes did do it. Cruise missiles would have looked entirely different and sounded entirely different.

Quote:

If planes did do it, then the damage would be consistent with it.
The damage is exclusive to 767's. Two identical buildings, two mostly identical impact scars on the facade, and two identical results (collapse). 400,000 pounds of aircraft and fuel moving at 450mph was more than enough to do the damage.

Quote:

Since in the real world planes can't do such things
You've shown nothing to support this statement.

Quote:

, they were limited to what weapons could accomplish it.
In the real world - no.

Quote:

They didn't use planes for a host of reasons, explained here:

Why They Didn't Use Planes
Oh good, you link to a nutjob whose other intellectual works include: Darwin's theory - a giant hoax / Gerard Holmgren and A case against reproductive technology / Gerard Holmgren and Colin Goodwin

He says this:

Quote:

Let's look at the latter problem. While it's certainly feasible to remote control a large jet into the towers, it's a high precision targeting job for an aircraft with very limited maneuverability. There's a significant risk that the plane won't hit its target properly. That it will hit some other building, just clip its wing on the tower and crash into the streets or cause a cascade of damage on other non targeted buildings, miss altogether and finish up in the Hudson, still reasonably intact - all kinds of risks.

A 767 is more maneuverable than a cruise missile (for the most part), and all that was required was to fly into two tall buildings - which was done. Those airframes are pushed to their limits during testing and the 767, while not an F-15, was more than suited (and perfect) for the job.

He follows that with this:

Quote:

[IWhatever the calculated likelyhood of a successfully targeted crash, it would have to be significantly lower than that of a missile or blobs- thing, which is specifically engineered for such precision strikes. ][/i]
He needs to explain this. How are the mechanics of a cruise missile's guidance system different than the autopilot on the Boeing? And remeber, we're talking remote control - not automation - so it would be the same as if the pilot was in the cockpit meaning any in-flight corrections could be made manually.

Holmgren didn't do his homework.

The rest of his assessment is twaddle.

Robin 31st January 2020 07:21 PM

Apparently the reason they didn't use planes is that it is easy enough to get hundreds of ordinary Americans to commit an act of fanaticism and never breathe a word about it for the rest of their lives, but it would be monstrously difficult to convince a handful of fanatics to commit an act of fanaticism.

Axxman300 31st January 2020 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12973895)
Apparently the reason they didn't use planes is that it is easy enough to get hundreds of ordinary Americans to commit an act of fanaticism and never breathe a word about it for the rest of their lives, but it would be monstrously difficult to convince a handful of fanatics to commit an act of fanaticism.

What I love about No-Planers is their total disconnect with reality.

They establish a separate reality wherein physics doesn't work and (in this case) the US Government or elements therein performed flawlessly by anticipating every contingency...

...except for framing Iraqi's, Pakistanis, or Iranians as the hijackers, or at least some of the hijackers, but for some reason let the Egyptian and Saudi hijackers be identified.

Oh, and then forgetting to plant WMD's to find in Iraq so we could have CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, BBC, and Fox News reporters stand in front of the facility on live TV and tell the world how the US saved them from Saddam.

But other than that it was a masterpiece...:thumbsup:

Regnad Kcin 31st January 2020 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12973669)
Apparently what you think is possible, and what was actually done, are different things.

If planes could do it, then missiles wouldn't be needed. If planes did do it, then the damage would be consistent with it. Since in the real world planes can't do such things, they were limited to what weapons could accomplish it.

They didn't use planes for a host of reasons, explained here:

Why They Didn't Use Planes

I really miss when Cracker Jack boxes contained an actual little toy. Any one else feel the same?

Axxman300 31st January 2020 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin (Post 12973940)
I really miss when Cracker Jack boxes contained an actual little toy. Any one else feel the same?

I liked the plastic cowboy.

smartcooky 31st January 2020 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Common Potato (Post 12973428)
I can see where you are coming from. My first computer was an Amstrad 1640. Mr Sir Lord Sugar is an (((entrepreneur))). Such is the evil that I was given a 30MB HDD for the price of a 20MB drive. There is no stopping these people. It all makes sense, now.

O...M...G...!!!! That was an MFM hard Drive...

Let me guess, it was about the same size as an Apple ][+ double height 5¼" FDD?

GlennB 1st February 2020 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12973745)
I am surprised the perps didn't use the services of the genius who wrote this lunatic pamphlet! He is the one with a perfect plan! :D

One lapse of logic that hit me particularly hard:
They wouldn't use remote controlled planes because rescue workers etc could find and recognise the revealing parts. Well... obviously the same people are supposed to be stupid enough not to identify parts of a missile! There is more, too many to list.

There's more ... if they didn't use planes then the rescue workers would fail to find ordinary plane parts in the wreckage. Yet they did.

If they can be threatened/corrupted into planting fake parts why can't they be threatened/corrupted into not revealing parts related to remote control?

The latter sounds an awful lot easier. What a crock.

turingtest 1st February 2020 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12973932)
What I love about No-Planers is their total disconnect with reality.

They establish a separate reality wherein physics doesn't work and (in this case) the US Government or elements therein performed flawlessly by anticipating every contingency...

...except for framing Iraqi's, Pakistanis, or Iranians as the hijackers, or at least some of the hijackers, but for some reason let the Egyptian and Saudi hijackers be identified.

Oh, and then forgetting to plant WMD's to find in Iraq so we could have CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, BBC, and Fox News reporters stand in front of the facility on live TV and tell the world how the US saved them from Saddam.

But other than that it was a masterpiece...:thumbsup:

The whole thing is a massive logic fail. Let's don't forget that the reason yankee says he knows it was missiles is because the damage couldn't have been done by a plane. So he's effectively proposing a conspiracy that imposed a fake that couldn't have worked as one; this is the kind of conspiracy that would only be logical to someone who needs to see one, and any dumb-ass conspiracy is better than none at all.

Wowbagger 1st February 2020 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12973669)

From that article:

Quote:

Put yourself in the position of the perps. You have to think through what
could go wrong in each possible scenario and then decide which scenario
poses the smallest risk.
Okay....

Quote:

Lets first look at the second scenario. You have the media on your side to
tell the story. What could go wrong?
1) Witnesses might see that they were not planes and report it.
Importantly, this document only lists one thing that could go wrong if they don't use planes. There are, in fact, MANY things that could go wrong:

2) The people who did the CG artistry would show the world how they did it. If they couldn't take home the actual work files, they could re-create them if they are really that talented. (And, many in the industry are freakin' show-offs, you know!)

3) The staff of the TV production companies could alert everyone else that they were instructed to rehearse, then fake the disaster. There are thousands upon thousands of them, you know.

4) The timing of releasing the faked footage would be extremely tight, for something that needs to be rushed out in perfect visual order. Workflows and pipelines would need to be extremely refined and optimized across many departments for something like that to happen. A LOT could go wrong in that chain, to throw the whole thing off.

5) They would need to insert fake plane parts into the wreckage without being noticed, after the buildings came down, for clean up crew to find; adding another complication.

6) What if the volunteer staff of the clean up crew starts finding missile fragments? You have to clean up the mess, to remove all of those, before you have people cleaning up the mess!

7) You have to fake the identities of ALL of the passengers who were killed, and hire actors to play their distraught friends, family members, and co-workers. Without arousing any suspicion.

Etc. I think others on this thread could come up with even more.

Quote:

Now lets look at the other choice - using real jets....

1) Hope that all the passengers get killed in the crash, so there's no
survivors to talk or hope that the perps can get to them first and knock them
off before they do talk.
This makes no sense to me.

Why would the perps care if any passengers survived, to tell the world what they saw?! They saw their plane being hijacked... which is exactly the story the perps wanted to convey!


The REAL problem with using planes is that the passengers might protest, and take the hijackers down before the plane reaches their target... which did happen to one of them, in fact.

But, that was only after the first three crashed into their targets. Before that, it was plausible for the passengers to think that the hijackers weren't on a suicide mission.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12973669)
Since in the real world planes can't do such things, they were limited to what weapons could accomplish it.

You're trying to tell me that planes colliding into buildings couldn't possibly cause that amount of damage to buildings?!

yankee451 1st February 2020 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12973855)
And the damage is consistent with a collision by an airliner.

Nope. The two circled pieces of cladding below expose that lie.

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

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...d-cladding.png

yankee451 1st February 2020 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12973887)

A 767 is more maneuverable than a cruise missile (for the most part),

Citation please.

For perspective, at this timestamp can be seen how quickly a JASSM turns.


YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

yankee451 1st February 2020 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turingtest (Post 12974146)
The whole thing is a massive logic fail. Let's don't forget that the reason yankee says he knows it was missiles is because the damage couldn't have been done by a plane. So he's effectively proposing a conspiracy that imposed a fake that couldn't have worked as one; this is the kind of conspiracy that would only be logical to someone who needs to see one, and any dumb-ass conspiracy is better than none at all.

Actually, your paraphrasing skills are lacking.

I arrived at cruise missiles as the most likely suspect based on the physical evidence that indicates something very small and not very massive struck at the far left of both towers, but as it traveled to the right, it became much bigger and much more massive.

The logic fail happens when you fine people ignore the physical evidence, in favor of what you saw on television.

Safe-Keeper 1st February 2020 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12972867)
THIS!

In the 1997 movie, Titanic, there was a scene where they morphed the sunken wreck of the foredeck of the ship into the floating brand new RMS Titanic on the surface in Southampton dock...

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


''..that clip was only 7 seconds long, a little shorter that the actual clip which was more like 12 seconds long (although the actual morph transition frames, a single viewpoint fluid motion tracking shot from left to right across about 45°) occupied only 3 to 4 seconds.

That one shot took a team of dozens of compositors and digital artists over 600 hours to make. Yankee would have us believe that dozens of videos from dozens of angles, all much longer than the Titanic 3-4 sec clip, were prepared and distributed within seconds of the impact.

Ain't happening.

So it's like the controlled demolition theory, which seems to imagine some bundles of dynamite sticks hidden in closets around the skyscrapers
like in a Warner Brothers cartoon.

GlennB 1st February 2020 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12974231)
Actually, your paraphrasing skills are lacking.

I arrived at cruise missiles as the most likely suspect based on the physical evidence that indicates something very small and not very massive struck at the far left of both towers, but as it traveled to the right, it became much bigger and much more massive.

The logic fail happens when you fine people ignore the physical evidence, in favor of what you saw on television.

:jaw-dropp

yankee451 1st February 2020 09:51 AM

JASSM turning

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

beachnut 1st February 2020 09:53 AM

failed to prove any video was fake - end of thread at the second post
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12974227)
Citation please.

Prove it is not. You failed to prove the videos are fake and now think the thin wing of a cruise missile can gouge the WTC shell, like the 767 did.

The missile has a tiny kinetic energy of 17 pounds of TNT, the 767 had 2,093 pounds of TNT. The wings of the 767 are more massive than the whole cruise missile. There was no explosion from explosives at impact. I suspect you were not in combat to experience explosions from explosives.

Your fantasy fails due to physics, you don't do physics.

yankee451 1st February 2020 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennB (Post 12974243)
:jaw-dropp

I know. The idea that a jet wing could change direction, and size and density is absurd. Obviously something that was smaller and less dense in some places than it was in others, struck from the side.

yankee451 1st February 2020 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachnut (Post 12974248)
Prove it is not. You failed to prove the videos are fake and now think the thin wing of a cruise missile can gouge the WTC shell, like the 767 did.

The missile has a tiny kinetic energy of 17 pounds of TNT, the 767 had 2,093 pounds of TNT. The wings of the 767 are more massive than the whole cruise missile. There was no explosion from explosives at impact. I suspect you were not in combat to experience explosions from explosives.

Your fantasy fails due to physics, you don't do physics.

I didn't say they are. He did. I simply asked for a citation in support of his claim, and provided an example of a JASSM turning sharply to the right.

turingtest 1st February 2020 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12974231)
Actually, your paraphrasing skills are lacking.

I arrived at cruise missiles as the most likely suspect based on the physical evidence that indicates something very small and not very massive struck at the far left of both towers, but as it traveled to the right, it became much bigger and much more massive.

The logic fail happens when you fine people ignore the physical evidence, in favor of what you saw on television.

And? How does that change the logic fail? You're still proposing a conspiracy that used a fake that, according to your "physical evidence," could never have worked as a fake. You're trying too hard to be the Fearless Internet Detective and proposing a conspiracy that could never have passed even the most elementary detection. Surely people who had the god-like powers you attribute to them of faking all the videos, even live, to show something that wasn't there could have faked the photos to show the correct damage to perpetuate the pretense? Then they wouldn't have had to worry about Scooby and you kids ripping the mask off.

bknight 1st February 2020 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12974231)
Actually, your paraphrasing skills are lacking.

I arrived at cruise missiles as the most likely suspect based on the physical evidence that indicates something very small and not very massive struck at the far left of both towers, but as it traveled to the right, it became much bigger and much more massive.

The logic fail happens when you fine people ignore the physical evidence, in favor of what you saw on television.

So you think it grows in mass? Pretend you know something about physics, tell me how this occurs?

bknight 1st February 2020 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12974250)
I know. The idea that a jet wing could change direction, and size and density is absurd. Obviously something that was smaller and less dense in some places than it was in others, struck from the side.

Oh but it does all of that as it transfers its KE to the building. The wing disintegrates and releases the mass of the fuel, just like Axxman300 showed us in his screen shots. Learn physics before posting nonsense like this.

Regnad Kcin 1st February 2020 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12974220)

My favorite Beatle would have to be Ringo. Who's yours, gang?

GlennB 1st February 2020 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin (Post 12974285)
My favorite Beatle would have to be Ringo. Who's yours, gang?

George, no question.

GlennB 1st February 2020 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12974263)
So you think it grows in mass? Pretend you know something about physics, tell me how this occurs?

yankee451 don't need no stinkin' physics! He just needs to post the same 2 photos endlessly.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:17 PM.

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