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)

theprestige 1st January 2020 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12940094)

Nope. I saw that part alright. I don't recognize your authority in the matter of forensic analysis of plane crash photos.

I already know you don't know much about the structure and contents of jet airliners, so I can't accept your lines and arrows on photographs as evidence of one kind of impact versus another.

yankee451 1st January 2020 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12940175)
Now what you didn't calculate is the length of the wing tip to the engine. The wing span is 156.1 feet but the wings are slanted by 31.5 degrees. Using trigonometry you then calculate that the wing length would be 66.54 feet, but the fuselage takes up 14.5 feet. So the length of a wing is 52.64 feet (rounded). From the centerline of the fuselage to the center of the engine is 25.667 feet at that same angle so that calculates 14 feet from edge of plane to center engine and 38 feet (rounded) from wing tip to center line engine.

Now the outside columns are 3.33 feet center to center and 9 columns would be 30 feet. Now the engine will impact the building at the same angle and this calculates to 32 feet.

right were it should impact the building as the image you presented shows.
So you are wrong in your assertion that the ninth column is "no where near the engine"

Tell that to Purdue and the fellas at MIT.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...1-1024x692.png

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...f-1024x576.gif

yankee451 1st January 2020 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12940195)
Nope. I saw that part alright. I don't recognize your authority in the matter of forensic analysis of plane crash photos.

I already know you don't know much about the structure and contents of jet airliners, so I can't accept your lines and arrows on photographs as evidence of one kind of impact versus another.


It is because I understand the structure very well that I am pointing to the impact evidence. Pity you can't address it.

yankee451 1st January 2020 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadie (Post 12940177)
So how on earth are you ascertaining whether the damage should be consistent with one cause or another...


...without calculating the forces involved?

If your entire position rests upon the idea that airplanes could not possibly have done the damage we see, then it should be a priority for you to perform even a rough estimation with the not-so-difficult math to point out an obvious discrepancy.

I explain my case thoroughly in the OP.

You on the other hand demand calculations to arrive at my conclusions, whereas you don't demand the same of your own conclusions. You saw it on television, that's why you believe what you believe. If my conclusions are incorrect, then you can use the same evidence I use to explain how it does not suit my conclusions, and instead, suits yours.

Deferring to some expert that you consider smarter than you, is your prerogative, but ignoring the evidence is not an option.

JSanderO 1st January 2020 12:12 PM

Yankee what is your point? You don't accept that the jet did the observed damage?

Perdue simulation is not bad at all. What is you specific objection to it?

It is a model based on assumptions and data... a change will produce a (slightly?) different simulation.

There conclusion was that the core col damage and the subsequent unfought fires doomed the tower. That conclusion is correct I believe.

This sim predated NIST's final report by 4 years.

bknight 1st January 2020 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12940198)

Two interpretations of the same event a plane impacting the building. Too bad you can't accept the facts as the evidence has shown.

yankee451 1st January 2020 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 12940212)
Yankee what is your point? You don't accept that the jet did the observed damage?

Perdue simulation is not bad at all. What is you specific objection to it?

It is a model based on assumptions and data... a change will produce a (slightly?) different simulation.

There conclusion was that the core col damage and the subsequent unfought fires doomed the tower. That conclusion is correct I believe.

This sim predated NIST's final report by 4 years.

I was using the Purdue cartoon to demonstrate that the engine hole was nowhere near the inward blasting hole on the ninth column from the left.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...e-1024x653.jpg

pgimeno 1st January 2020 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12940009)
As stated in the link above, it takes specialized machinery and very high pressure to cut steel with water, but to use it as a reason to believe an aluminum wing can do so too, smacks of desperation. We're comparing apples to bananas here, but even so the reason a water jet can do such a thing is due to its focusing all its energy on a tiny area, like a bullet might do. With enough velocity a bullet will puncture steel because like the water jet, the energy of the projectile is focused on a very small point, with the mass and velocity of the bullet (or column of water) overcoming the mass of the steel at the point of impact.

... and over and over...
Quote:

Originally Posted by pgimeno (Post 9750631)
Aluminium alloys are used extensively in aircraft due to their high strength-to-weight ratio. On the other hand, pure aluminium metal is much too soft for such uses, and it does not have the high tensile strength that is needed for airplanes and helicopters.

Aluminium alloys versus types of steel
Aluminium alloys typically have an elastic modulus of about 70 GPa, which is about one-third of the elastic modulus of most kinds of steel and steel alloys.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alumini...oys_properties

We're not talking water, nor aluminium like the one used in cans. We're talking an alloy with about one third the strength of the columns.

yankee451 1st January 2020 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12940214)
Two interpretations of the same event a plane impacting the building. Too bad you can't accept the facts as the evidence has shown.


Both interpretations were based on videos, not the physical evidence. Purdue's cartoon shows the whole plane, wing tips and all, sliding like butter into the building, but the damage evidence proves that's not "the fact."

MIT even admitted they were guessing. From page 34:

Quote:

2. Objects and approach
The functional objective of this article is to make educated predictions of the internal structural
damage that occurred within the towers and that was hardly, if at all, visible to the observer.
https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...t-Impact-1.pdf

yankee451 1st January 2020 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgimeno (Post 12940220)
... and over and over...

We're not talking water, nor aluminium like the one used in cans. We're talking an alloy with about one third the strength of the columns.

Right.

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...1-48-16-PM.png

Axxman300 1st January 2020 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12940070)
For many reasons, not the least of which is mostly hollow aluminum jets cannot do what dense-metal penetrating missiles can do, and if they could do, then there would be no need for dense-metal penetrating missiles. Real planes leave parts that can be tracked. Real planes would mean real bodies, which can be identified. If the plane didn't strike dead center and only clipped a wing, there was no way to contain the crash damage, and much, much, more. Explained by the late Gerard Holmgren, here:
https://911crashtest.org/why-they-didnt-use-planes/

Oh, please tell us what kind of missile was used.

bknight 1st January 2020 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12940223)
Both interpretations were based on videos, not the physical evidence. Purdue's cartoon shows the whole plane, wing tips and all, sliding like butter into the building, but the damage evidence proves that's not "the fact."

MIT even admitted they were guessing. From page 34:



https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...t-Impact-1.pdf

Obviously from the diagram as the plane was not perpendicular to the face of the building when it hit, as the videos from the south side demonstrate. But yes the damage in the videos is exactly as it should have been, the math overturns your eyesight. You don't accept those facts as they negate your belief. It is no use presenting facts that are in concert with the damage. Unless you come up with some evidence that disproves the damage other than your belief, I'm done with you.

Deadie 1st January 2020 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12940209)
You on the other hand demand calculations to arrive at my conclusions

Why wouldn't I or anyone else have such a demand from claims such as yours?

How many Newtons of force/m2 would an airplane impart unto the building given its cross-section, mass and velocity?

JSanderO 1st January 2020 01:26 PM

From my perspective all of the work presented to explain or model/simulate the collapse events at the WTC are at best "educated guesses". I think all probably have nailed some of the elements but none get it all exactly as it went down. So what?

All these "models" show is that it is completely reasonable for the plane to have been the initiating event leading to the collapse of the towers. Many people want/expect a micro second and millimeter precise explanation of each collapse. While theoretically possible. It would serve no practical purpose.

People wanted to know how it was possible for the buildings to collapse first and foremost. The work done demonstrates this. Probably all the attempts are flawed or incomplete or somewhat inaccurate. How could they be anything else?

How is it possible to reproduce or simulate these events to 100% fidelity? Why is that necessary?

What you don't want is making up stuff and fooling with the laws of physics.

Why resort to crazy stuff when the actual stuff can do what we saw?

Brainster 1st January 2020 01:36 PM

Just out of curiosity, now that the 9-11 Truth Movement is 7 years into your crash test project, what have you obtained? Have you got the rocket sled and the 767 wing yet and are just awaiting the fabrication of the box columns?

SpitfireIX 1st January 2020 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 12940212)
Yankee what is your point? You don't accept that the jet did the observed damage?

Perdue simulation is not bad at all. What is you specific objection to it?

It is a model based on assumptions and data... a change will produce a (slightly?) different simulation.

There conclusion was that the core col damage and the subsequent unfought fires doomed the tower. That conclusion is correct I believe.

This sim predated NIST's final report by 4 years.


<cough>

As to his specific objection to the simulation, it is, of course, that it disproves some of his deeply held beliefs about the September 11th attacks. :rolleyes:

curious cat 1st January 2020 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 12939933)
I am confused about the timing of the destruction of the plane and its contents. Presumably the impact of the nose would cause velocity decrease as well as crushing or the nose etc. It probably had enough kinetic energy to punch through the facade.

I am not sure I understand why the wings structures would fold back. Intuitive to my thinking is the plane's entire front profile would impact the building. If the impact slowed the fuselage why would the wings fold back? If anything they might maintain their velocity as the fuselage is crushed???

What is the structural design where the wings are? I would think (but I don't know) that wings are not simply bolted the the fuselage.

Please explain.

Your problem is simply the ratio of mass and area that is being impacted by it. In the case of fuselage you have a huge mass hitting a small area containing the decelerating components. The kinetic energy is concentrated in that small area resulting in a huge force from its deceleration. In the case of the wings the area is much lager and the force created by dissipating of the kinetic energy is distributed over it, resulting in smaller force over unit of area - pressure, if you wish. For that reason the wings are not able to follow the fuselage at the same speed penetrating the building material.

Jack by the hedge 1st January 2020 03:57 PM

It seems that yankee451's problem with a plane having made the plane shaped hole is principally that the damage due to the left wing appears in his chosen photo to indicate that the impacting object was moving to the right as it struck, and didn't hit the building square on.

Since the plane didn't hit the building square on but at an angle aiming to the right, I'm wondering why he thinks that is a problem at all.

His next objection appears to be his "oops" feature: There's a hole which suggests a harder or heavier part hit there, some way outboard of the port engine. Without knowing how various structures are placed in the wing, I have no idea what part might have hit there, but since I don't assume the wing was a featureless, amorphous structure internally, it seems a bit premature to assign it an "oops" unless yankee451 already knows the layout of the 767's wing structure. If he does have this information, I have yet to see him reveal it.

Still, his ambitious plans include the purchase of a 767 wing for destructive testing purposes so he may yet gain first hand knowledge of which parts fit where. We must hope he'll share his findings.

Blue Mountain 1st January 2020 04:02 PM

A question for yankee541.

American Airlines Flight 11 departed Logan International Airport in Boston at 7:45 AM EST on September 11, 2001 with 81 passengers and 11 crew, bound for Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles. The aircraft, passengers, and crew never reached their intended destination.

United Airlines Flight 175 departed Logan International Airport in Boston at 8:14 AM EST on September 11, 2001 with 56 passengers and 9 crew, bound for Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles. The aircraft, passengers, and crew never reached their intended destination.

American Airlines Flight 77 departed Washington Dulles International Airport in Dulles, Virginia, at 8:20 AM EST on September 11, 2001 with 58 passengers and 8 crew, bound for Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles. The aircraft, passengers, and crew never reached their intended destination.

United Airlines Flight 93 departed Newark International Airport in New Jersey 8:42 AM EST on September 11, 2001 with 33 passengers and 7 crew, bound for San Francisco International Airport in San Francisco. The aircraft, passengers, and crew never reached their intended destination.

Pray tell, in an era where thousands of flights depart and arrive successfully every day, what happened to the 236 people and four aircraft involved with these flights?

curious cat 1st January 2020 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain (Post 12940343)
A question for yankee541.

American Airlines Flight 11 departed Logan International Airport in Boston at 7:45 AM EST on September 11, 2001 with 81 passengers and 11 crew, bound for Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles. The aircraft, passengers, and crew never reached their intended destination.

United Airlines Flight 175 departed Logan International Airport in Boston at 8:14 AM EST on September 11, 2001 with 56 passengers and 9 crew, bound for Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles. The aircraft, passengers, and crew never reached their intended destination.

American Airlines Flight 77 departed Washington Dulles International Airport in Dulles, Virginia, at 8:20 AM EST on September 11, 2001 with 58 passengers and 8 crew, bound for Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles. The aircraft, passengers, and crew never reached their intended destination.

United Airlines Flight 93 departed Newark International Airport in New Jersey 8:42 AM EST on September 11, 2001 with 33 passengers and 7 crew, bound for San Francisco International Airport in San Francisco. The aircraft, passengers, and crew never reached their intended destination.

Pray tell, in an era where thousands of flights depart and arrive successfully every day, what happened to the 236 people and four aircraft involved with these flights?

There are dozens of entirely plausible explanations. Apart from well documented alien abductions, time warps, black hole suction, quantum jump etc we do have to include the alternative of the planes being hijacked - just to be fair. But, considering all circumstances; how likely is that?

Roger Ramjets 1st January 2020 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12938558)
Full article here.

How they spoofed the “live” shots of flight 175:
  1. Rehearse the handful of perspectives of flight 175 that will be broadcast live.
  2. The fireball will erupt from the south face of the South Tower.
  3. The rehearsed perspectives were from the north face of the North Tower (opposite the fireball).
  4. By design these rehearsed “live” perspectives will fail to capture the crash of the alleged plane.
  5. Create a CGI animation of a jet with a transparent background to match each of the rehearsed shots.
  6. On the big day: from the same rehearsed perspectives, capture video footage of the fireball that erupted from the south face of the South Tower.
  7. Live television is never live; there is always a broadcast delay to prevent unwanted content from airing. Utilizing the broadcast delay of how ever many seconds were necessary,
  8. overlay the CGI animations onto the live videos of the fireball.
  9. Flatten the video layers of the CGI planes and the live fireball.
  10. Release the merged video layers as “live.”


How they spoofed the “amateur” videos (not live):
  1. Deploy dozens of photographers to pose as amateurs.
  2. Rehearse each of their perspectives and create a CGI animation of a jet with a transparent background to match.
  3. The first fireball erupts from the north face of the North Tower.
  4. 18 minutes until the next fireball.
  5. All the live network broadcasts are capturing videos of the hole in the north face of the North Tower.
  6. Dozens of “amateur” cameras are capturing videos of the south face of the South Tower.
  7. The second fireball erupts, this time from the south face of the South Tower.
  8. The Networks broadcast live videos showing what looks like a plane crashing into the towers; the world is horrified.
  9. Each of the “amateur” photographers edits their respective video, removing what really cut the hole in the South Tower and adding a plane.
  10. The propaganda organs release these videos periodically over the following days, weeks, months and years.

I don't understand why nobody here takes this seriously.

Actually I do. As one of the photographers paid to pose as an amateur for 9/11, I take it very seriously. That's why I will never talk about it to anyone who isn't in on the conspiracy.

What's that you say, I just did? But of course you know better. I know that you are in on it to too. That's why you keep presenting 'evidence' so full of holes that a child could see through it - to discredit the 9/11 truth movement and make sure nobody bothers to look at the real evidence - which irrefutably proves it was an inside job.

But this a vast conspiracy - much vaster than a mere 10 to 50 thousand crisis actors. Current estimates put the number of people 'in on it' at ~35 million worldwide, with more joining the conspiracy every day. And not just since 9/11, but before it too. The planning took years, centuries even. You know that bit in the Bible where Jesus says "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."? He was in on it.

Norman Alexander 1st January 2020 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12940215)
I was using the Purdue cartoon to demonstrate that the engine hole was nowhere near the inward blasting hole on the ninth column from the left.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...e-1024x653.jpg

Caused by the flap running gear and strake, which lines up exactly with that point. These are strong-points in the wing frame.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgimeno (Post 12940220)
... and over and over...

We're not talking water, nor aluminium like the one used in cans. We're talking an alloy with about one third the strength of the columns.

Are you expecting that there will be NO damage to the columns because they are "weaker"? Srsly?

yankee451 1st January 2020 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 12940006)
Thousands of people in NY watched it happen with their own eyes.

Sure. But anyone who says they saw a jet melt like butter into the towers, as shown on television, is mistaken.

Norman Alexander 1st January 2020 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12940393)
Sure. But anyone who says they saw a jet melt like butter into the towers, as shown on television, is mistaken.

That's YOUR interpretation. Reality was much different. But don't let that stop you from persisting with your fantasies!

Captain_Swoop 1st January 2020 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12940070)
For many reasons, not the least of which is mostly hollow aluminum jets cannot do what dense-metal penetrating missiles can do, and if they could do, then there would be no need for dense-metal penetrating missiles. Real planes leave parts that can be tracked. Real planes would mean real bodies, which can be identified. If the plane didn't strike dead center and only clipped a wing, there was no way to contain the crash damage, and much, much, more. Explained by the late Gerard Holmgren, here:
https://911crashtest.org/why-they-didnt-use-planes/

What 'dense metal' do you think missiles are made from?

What do you think happened to all the passengers and crew that were aboard the aircraft?

Captain_Swoop 1st January 2020 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12940151)
Air launched air to surface standoff missiles, such as the JASSM or something very much like it.

Yes, there were reports of missiles being seen and heard at the WTC and at Shanksville.

Which 'dense metal' are JASSM missiles made from?

Captain_Swoop 1st January 2020 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12940393)
Sure. But anyone who says they saw a jet melt like butter into the towers, as shown on television, is mistaken.

What about the people that saw it with their own eyes?

bruto 1st January 2020 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 12940425)
What about the people that saw it with their own eyes?

I would suppose that if a person believes that every single picture taken of the event occurring in the middle of one of the biggest cities on the planet was faked by expertly placed shills in impossible time using nonexistent technology, such that no undoctored photography of the event is possible, the purported disappearance of a few hundred people is small potatoes.

I mean, really, why sweat the little lunacies.

smartcooky 1st January 2020 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12938558)
How they spoofed the “amateur” videos (not live):
  1. Deploy dozens of photographers to pose as amateurs.
  2. Rehearse each of their perspectives and create a CGI animation of a jet with a transparent background to match.
  3. The first fireball erupts from the north face of the North Tower.
  4. 18 minutes until the next fireball.
  5. All the live network broadcasts are capturing videos of the hole in the north face of the North Tower.
  6. Dozens of “amateur” cameras are capturing videos of the south face of the South Tower.
  7. The second fireball erupts, this time from the south face of the South Tower.
  8. The Networks broadcast live videos showing what looks like a plane crashing into the towers; the world is horrified.
  9. Each of the “amateur” photographers edits their respective video, removing what really cut the hole in the South Tower and adding a plane.
  10. The propaganda organs release these videos periodically over the following days, weeks, months and years.

Anyone who takes this pile of horse puckey seriously, needs their head examined.

Quite typical of CTs....create ever more preposterous and unlikely sequences of events, from whole cloth, to account for the simple, inconvenient facts and truth.

AJM8125 1st January 2020 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12940122)
<snip> Even with military-grade smoke machines to embellish the carnage,<snip>

Oh hi steve! That reminds me of another favorite of mine - a crappy low resolution youtube screen grab of what you touted to be a military smoke generator, but alas, hi-rez once again tripped you up:


I've gone through the thread where you make this claim and doggone it, I don't see where you've admitted your error and retracted the claim.

Hrm.

:sdl:

bruto 1st January 2020 10:22 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Speaking of fake photographs, I have delved into the super-seekrit vaults of truth, and this obviously unretouched original photograph shows clearly that our esteemed thread-starter is working with poor data.


Attachment 41278

smartcooky 1st January 2020 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 12940538)
Speaking of fake photographs, I have delved into the super-seekrit vaults of truth, and this obviously unretouched original photograph shows clearly that our esteemed thread-starter is working with poor data.


Attachment 41278


Hahahahaha!

The significance of a big rabbit going into a big hole was not lost on me!

curious cat 1st January 2020 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 12940538)
Speaking of fake photographs, I have delved into the super-seekrit vaults of truth, and this obviously unretouched original photograph shows clearly that our esteemed thread-starter is working with poor data.


Attachment 41278

Don't believe all what you see. I suspect this picture has been photoshoped.

GlennB 2nd January 2020 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12940151)
Air launched air to surface standoff missiles, such as the JASSM or something very much like it.

Yes, there were reports of missiles being seen and heard at the WTC and at Shanksville.

The JASSM has a wingspan of 2.7m, meaning that the body of the missile could pass through a window, leaving only the flimsy (compared to an airliner) alloy wings to damage the columns. So, each missile would need to strike a column exactly head-on and you'd need one missile per column. To cause the observed damage you'd need a swarm of them, but they'd have to strike at different times to avoid colliding with each other while in flight.

You haven't thought this through, have you? Do over!

smartcooky 2nd January 2020 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennB (Post 12940580)
The JASSM has a wingspan of 2.7m, meaning that the body of the missile could pass through a window, leaving only the flimsy (compared to an airliner) alloy wings to damage the columns. So, each missile would need to strike a column exactly head-on and you'd need one missile per column. To cause the observed damage you'd need a swarm of them, but they'd have to strike at different times to avoid colliding with each other while in flight.

You haven't thought this through, have you? Do over!


Not only would you need a swarm, but each missile would have to be precisely aimed to mimic the slant angle of the two airliners wings, and a larger missile for the engines holes, and even larger one for the fuselage holes.

Also, JASSM (more correctly the AGM-158) is designed to take out surface targets. Its equipped with a 450 kg warhead containing about 100kg of AFX-757 explosive. It has a contact fuse design so that the blast force is lateral. The warhead contains nowhere near enough explosive to make the Shanksville crater... not even close.

Also, the AGM-158 casing is constructed from composite materials... so how is it that no remnants of composite materials and no high-explosive residues were found at the Shanksville site, yet human remains, aluminium and aircraft parts specifically identified as coming from N591UA, a Boeing 757-222 were found there. Flight 93 crashed at 10:02 am. First responders started arriving at the scene from around 10:07 am. Five minutes is nowhere near enough time for the sooper seekrit fake-squad to

1. Get to the burning crash site
2. Find and remove all the evidence of the AGM-158's composites and explosives residues from the scene
3. Plant aircraft wreckage and human remains
4. Get away before the first responders see them

These twoofer idiots just do not even bother to think about the practical realities of what would need to be done to make their harebrained, bat-**** crazy theories into reality.

JSanderO 2nd January 2020 04:36 AM

Yankee... give it up.... you need to acknowledge that your ideas have no credibility at all. Debating them is a waste of time but you have been "schooled". Have decency and humility and admit you were wrong.

The so called official story may not be 100% correct / accurate because there were no transducers and so to monitor the buildings and thoroughly. Educated guess were used. This is pretty much what forensic science does to reconstruct a disaster.

And not only that... who could possibly engineer and stage what we witnessed... such that it looked like a disaster no one has ever seen? Note how much effort has gone into all the post event study and it still impossible to faithfully simulate the event with 100% accuracy.

Your work is not productive. Be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

curious cat 2nd January 2020 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12940592)
.................................................. .......

Also, JASSM (more correctly the AGM-158) is designed to take out surface targets. Its equipped with a 450 kg warhead containing about 100kg of AFX-757 explosive. It has a contact fuse design so that the blast force is lateral. The warhead contains nowhere near enough explosive to make the Shanksville crater... not even close.

.................................................. ...............

I elaborated a bit on the energy comparison:
100 kg of AFX releases about 500 MJ of energy upon explosion.
A fully loaded B767 travelling at cruising speed according to basic formula E=1/2mv^ carries about 5,000 MJ. If you dissipate this energy over just a few meters of stopping distance, the effect will very much resemble an explosion - explosion of about 10 of the said warheads. That gives us some perspective :-). And this doesn't include the power of a substantial amount of fuel that has been atomised by impact, mixed with air and combusted immediately in explosive manner.
Note, the numbers are VERY approximate and the above is intended to give just a rough idea what we are dealing with here.

Dave Rogers 2nd January 2020 04:57 AM

This thread makes me miss Ace Baker. Mad as a box of frogs, but he spun a decent yarn.

Dave

Crazy Chainsaw 2nd January 2020 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12940209)
I explain my case thoroughly in the OP.

You on the other hand demand calculations to arrive at my conclusions, whereas you don't demand the same of your own conclusions. You saw it on television, that's why you believe what you believe. If my conclusions are incorrect, then you can use the same evidence I use to explain how it does not suit my conclusions, and instead, suits yours.

Deferring to some expert that you consider smarter than you, is your prerogative, but ignoring the evidence is not an option.

And Steven E. Jones proved you wrong in 2008 yet here we are again, ps the reason a water Jet cuts steel is because two physical paritcles can not occupy the same place at the same time. It's a very simple Physics priciple one particle the particle with lower energy Has to give way to the particle with higher energy.
Hardness friction and superheating do to impact forces all play a role.
As I said This was all debunked By Dr.Steven E. Jones in 2008.
Oh yes Jones did give caculations.
I see no reason to continue the discussion in 2020.

Oystein 2nd January 2020 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets (Post 12940376)
...
But this a vast conspiracy - much vaster than a mere 10 to 50 thousand crisis actors. Current estimates put the number of people 'in on it' at ~35 million worldwide, with more joining the conspiracy every day. ...

You are so limited in your imagination, so feeble, so unbold!

AE911Truth blamed THE GENERAL POPULATION in early 2018:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=327881

That's hundreds of millions in the USA alone, billions worldwide!


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:25 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.