ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags no plane theory , no planers

Reply
Old 2nd September 2012, 03:21 PM   #241
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,409
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
they add abrasive mixes to water and the pressure applied is continuous. They don't just blast an aluminum bubble filled with water against the cutting object at high speed.
And guess who didn't read the article which mentions that the jets works without abrasives as well? To quote the very first sentence:

Quote:
A water jet cutter, also known as a waterjet,[1] is a tool capable of slicing into metal or other materials (such as granite) using a jet of water at high velocity and pressure, or a mixture of water and an abrasive substance.:

It's the kinetic energy that gives the jet its primary cutting power, the abrasives just make it more effective on certain materials.
Garrison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2012, 03:28 PM   #242
Mikeys
Muse
 
Mikeys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 501
Originally Posted by Montag451 View Post


It's a win win for you. You'll learn about energy and inertia, and if you are lucky enough to break through the wall you will understand how fast moving objects can pass through solid objects.
Good reasoning. do you know of examples of soft fast moving objects passing through hard flexible solid objects in a blast.

Last edited by Mikeys; 2nd September 2012 at 03:29 PM.
Mikeys is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2012, 03:29 PM   #243
JohnG
Pedantic Bore
 
JohnG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Abandon All Hope
Posts: 6,802
Lurking Truthers everywhere, I give you...your spokesman!

Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
Mexicans can do anything for a buck.

Embarrassing, isn't it?
__________________
Do not weep. Do not wax indignant. Understand. - Baruch Spinoza
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. - Harlan Ellison
JohnG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2012, 03:31 PM   #244
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,632
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
Good reasoning. do you know of examples of soft fast moving objects passing through hard flexible solid objects in a blast.
Like a bullet though steel?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2012, 03:31 PM   #245
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,045
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
they add abrasive mixes to water and the pressure applied is continuous. They don't just blast an aluminum bubble filled with water against the cutting object at high speed.
LOL, the aircraft mass cuts through the WTC shell, because it has enough mass and energy, which you agree with when you say water and abrasive cuts steel.

The water and abrasive is like the aircraft shot at the steel. The plane is continuous, it is call newton's first law.
Quote:
Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.
Oops, we have continuous until the external force, the building stops the motion; you don't do physics, so this will not stop you from posting more woo. ... the more you post, the more you diverge from reality and physics.

Have you done the math? Have you solved for 175, using E=1/2mv2

You don't respect the v squared.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2012, 03:33 PM   #246
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,632
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
Lurking Truthers everywhere, I give you...your spokesman!




Embarrassing, isn't it?
Best they have. It's easier if they flunk out of school first.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2012, 03:41 PM   #247
Mikeys
Muse
 
Mikeys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 501
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Like a bullet though steel?
Do they cut steel by blast of air?
Mikeys is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2012, 03:44 PM   #248
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
I can't I am just a pony. ....
The one trick kind, apparently.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2012, 03:50 PM   #249
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
Why only some.
The same reason a high school English class doesn't discuss every word of every page of To Kill a Mockingbird.

Quote:
You see, there was no impact on WTC7, just mystery.
If you can't prove conspiracy on the towers, you can't prove conspiracy on 7. Unless you're claiming that 7 was only rigged after 1 fell on it. Which is even more impossible than rigging one of the towers.

Fire has made steel buildings collapse before.

Quote:
The speed was 500mph in both cases.
Really? The plane in the video was going at that speed? Where is it stated? Maybe I missed it. You are aware that an increase in mass is an exponential force increase, even if the objects in comparison are traveling at the same speed? You are aware that WTC was not a concrete wall?
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2012, 03:52 PM   #250
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,632
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
Do they cut steel by blast of air?
Who cares? Everything you've claimed so far is based in la-la land. Seriously, did you graduate high school (yet)?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2012, 04:05 PM   #251
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,045
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
Good reasoning. do you know of examples of soft fast moving objects passing through hard flexible solid objects in a blast.
A duck breaking the cockpit window and breaking the pilots shoulder.

It makes no sense. What blast?



The kinetic energy blast, the one you deny.

Last edited by beachnut; 2nd September 2012 at 04:16 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2012, 04:17 PM   #252
Mikeys
Muse
 
Mikeys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 501
Look guys, you have to make a decision what made that hole.
a. aluminum shell
b. explosion
c. air blast
d. superman
It has to be some kind of matter.
Mikeys is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2012, 04:19 PM   #253
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,632
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
Look guys, you have to make a decision what made that hole.
a. aluminum shell
b. explosion
c. air blast
d. superman
It has to be some kind of matter.
Why no "airplane" option? Is that to straight forward for you to understand?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 2nd September 2012 at 04:21 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2012, 04:20 PM   #254
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,045
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
Look guys, you have to make a decision what made that hole.
a. aluminum shell
b. explosion
c. air blast
d. superman
It has to be some kind of matter.
Flight 175 at 590 mph. You failed to do your research and don't use science to form rational claims, posts, and conclusions.

RADAR proves it was an aircraft, exactly Flight 175.
The plane is more than an Al shell, it is people, luggage, steel, titanium, stainless steel, Kevlar, fiberglass, 66,000 pounds of jet fuel, etc.

It was Flt 175, 277,580 pounds at impact, 125,908 kg, going 590 mph, 865 kph, impact energy of 2093 pounds of TNT; do you need that in Joules?

Last edited by beachnut; 2nd September 2012 at 04:24 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2012, 04:36 PM   #255
Mikeys
Muse
 
Mikeys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 501
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Flight 175 at 590 mph. You failed to do your research and don't use science to form rational claims, posts, and conclusions.

RADAR proves it was an aircraft, exactly Flight 175.
The plane is more than an Al shell, it is people, luggage, steel, titanium, stainless steel, Kevlar, fiberglass, 66,000 pounds of jet fuel, etc.

It was Flt 175, 277,580 pounds at impact, 125,908 kg, going 590 mph, 865 kph, impact energy of 2093 pounds of TNT; do you need that in Joules?
These are impressive numbers. So impressive they even ignore Newtonian laws. When you look at the videos and run them in slow motion you will notice there was no deceleration right after the impact. The plane continued at its former speed. Collision with the wall? No such thing happened. That's why it flew so smoothly through a rigid steel wall that was not there.
Mikeys is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2012, 04:37 PM   #256
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,409
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
Look guys, you have to make a decision what made that hole.
a. aluminum shell
b. explosion
c. air blast
d. superman
It has to be some kind of matter.
One more time its about energy. The combined elements of the aircraft contained a huge amount of kinetic energy, a large amount of which was transferred to the building structure with catastrophic results. Then on top of this the chemical energy of the fuel and other flammable materials was transferred to it by combustion. Now if you can't understand some of those terms you shouldn't be having this conversation.
Garrison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2012, 04:40 PM   #257
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,409
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
These are impressive numbers. So impressive they even ignore Newtonian laws. When you look at the videos and run them in slow motion you will notice there was no deceleration right after the impact. The plane continued at its former speed. Collision with the wall? No such thing happened. That's why it flew so smoothly through a rigid steel wall that was not there.
So now the outer wall was composed of sheet steel? And how did you make the measurements to determine there was no deceleration? How much deceleration did you calculate there should have been in such an impact?
Garrison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2012, 04:44 PM   #258
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,632
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
These are impressive numbers. So impressive they even ignore Newtonian laws. ..................
So, what's the deal Mikeys? Did the boyfriend get his hours cut a Burger King again? Can't afford to take you out so you post here for company?

It's obvious.

No one is this stupid.

Newtonian laws? Tell you what, if you can explain what laws were broken (and how*) , I'll never post again.

*it actually has to be Newtonian laws, not you're understanding of them.


I'm not in the least bit worried.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 2nd September 2012 at 04:47 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2012, 04:48 PM   #259
BrianH
Thinker
 
BrianH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 188
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
...a rigid steel wall that was not there.
Well, he has something right at least.
BrianH is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2012, 04:49 PM   #260
Mikeys
Muse
 
Mikeys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 501
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
One more time its about energy. The combined elements of the aircraft contained a huge amount of kinetic energy, a large amount of which was transferred to the building structure with catastrophic results. Then on top of this the chemical energy of the fuel and other flammable materials was transferred to it by combustion. Now if you can't understand some of those terms you shouldn't be having this conversation.
I admit I don't understand combustion. Is it some form of compost?
Why not just say that fire melted the frame and we will have another straw man laughing at the absurdity of such a thing.
Mikeys is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2012, 04:57 PM   #261
Mikeys
Muse
 
Mikeys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 501
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
So now the outer wall was composed of sheet steel? And how did you make the measurements to determine there was no deceleration? How much deceleration did you calculate there should have been in such an impact?
It finally decelerated when it hit the inner grid and platforms. In fact, it did what it should have done when it met the outer wall, that is stop and explode. It returned to the real world and started following Newtonian laws, which is something I wish believers did one day.
Mikeys is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2012, 05:02 PM   #262
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,045
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
These are impressive numbers. So impressive they even ignore Newtonian laws. When you look at the videos and run them in slow motion you will notice there was no deceleration right after the impact. The plane continued at its former speed. Collision with the wall? No such thing happened. That's why it flew so smoothly through a rigid steel wall that was not there.
Wrong! No Newton laws were broken on 911, you got that from the failed nuts at 911 truth; a plagiarized claim based on ignorance.

LOL, you don't do physics. Flight 175 decelerated as soon as the engines stopped putting out 126 thousand pounds of thrust. You forgot the plane was flying into the WTC at full throttle - you failed again.

Rigid? The WTC swayed in the wind. Rigid? Try to get something right.

Until the engines are destroyed they are producing thrust, pushing the plane into the WTC. Called physics, what you don't know.

With the KE of 2093 pounds of TNT, Flt 175 has over 10 times the energy required to break into the WTC. 10 times - do you do math? NO


Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
... what made that hole.
a. aluminum shell
An aircraft is more than an Al shell, which you think is foil. Even the wings have enough mass to do major damage. You left out Flt 175 doing it! The reality based answer you left out.

Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
... what made that hole.
b. explosion
An explosion can't make the walls suck into the WTC. This is the dumbest answer, only an idiot would pick it after seeing what really made the "hole" where all on board 175 died - the event you make fun of by spreading nonsense and exposing a growing ignorance of science.


Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
... what made that hole.
c. air blast
You left out the reality answer, why not make more fun of 911 victims.

Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
... what made that hole.
d. superman
In your fantasy world this is as good as your explosion and air-blast nonsense.

Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
... what made that hole.
It has to be some kind of matter.
Flight 175.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2012, 05:13 PM   #263
Montag451
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 408
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
It finally decelerated when it hit the inner grid and platforms. In fact, it did what it should have done when it met the outer wall, that is stop and explode. It returned to the real world and started following Newtonian laws, which is something I wish believers did one day.
You have to be trolling. Nobody of right mind would actually write what you just did.

It finally decelerated when it hit the inner grid and it did in fact also stop and explode at the outer wall.

Do you have any idea of what Newton's Laws actually are?

I'll paraphrase them for you

1. An object will stay at rest or at a constant velocity unless acted on by an external force.
2. Force is proportional to the acceleration for a constant mass
3. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction

Now you know the basics could you describe how these laws will suddenly stop a plane dead at impact and explode. The only way is if the facade Is of sufficient strength for it to resist the impact without failing.

Are you really suggesting that the facade of the towers was strong enough to resist the impact with no failure and the hole is the result of an external explosion?
Montag451 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2012, 05:19 PM   #264
Montag451
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 408
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
I admit I don't understand combustion. Is it some form of compost?
Why not just say that fire melted the frame and we will have another straw man laughing at the absurdity of such a thing.

Why use the word melted if you have no understanding of thermodynamics?

Put a candle in you window on a hot day and watch it flop over without melting.

Steel loses tensile strength with heat, the same as the candle, no melting has to be involved.
Montag451 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2012, 05:22 PM   #265
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,045
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
It finally decelerated when it hit the inner grid and platforms. In fact, it did what it should have done when it met the outer wall, that is stop and explode. It returned to the real world and started following Newtonian laws, which is something I wish believers did one day.
The exterior of the WTC towers at that height could only repel a plane going 200 mph. It is math and physics. I cheated, I also asked the structural engineer who built the WTC towers, and then his work, what he said was confirmed by other engineers; 200 mph was the magic number for the WTC as built. Guess what, thicker steel would stop an aircraft - all you need to do is calculate it. The design was based on an accidental impact, an aircraft lost in the fog low on fuel, landing pattern speed. But then you don't care, you spread delusional claims based on nonsense.

The impact was all Newton's laws. You never took physics, aircraft design, and building design. It shows. Yet, it only takes a grade school education to debunk your failed claims.

You failed to show your work for your no deceleration claim, where is it?


Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
... it should have done when it met the outer wall, that is stop and explode. ...
This is nonsense based on your own gullibility and ignorance of physics.

How can the aircraft stop when it has 10 times the energy required to break the WTC shell? Please show your math.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2012, 05:28 PM   #266
Mikeys
Muse
 
Mikeys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 501
[quote=beachnut;8587733]

Quote:
Rigid? The WTC swayed in the wind. Rigid? Try to get something right.
so...
Quote:
Until the engines are destroyed they are producing thrust, pushing the plane into the WTC. Called physics, what you don't know.
pushing a bubble filled with air through a damn strong wall.
Quote:
With the KE of 2093 pounds of TNT, Flt 175 has over 10 times the energy required to break into the WTC. 10 times - do you do math? NO
Was this energy compacted into a solid as is the case with bullets? If not, analogy does not apply.

Quote:
Even the wings have enough mass to do major damage.
to a flock of birds(at a risk)

Quote:
An explosion can't make the walls suck into the WTC. This is the dumbest answer, only an idiot would pick it after seeing what really made the "hole" where all on board 175 died - the event you make fun of by spreading nonsense and exposing a growing ignorance of science.
I think it was the only plane that hit anything that day in America. And I don't think it had passengers on board.

Quote:
In your fantasy world this is as good as your explosion and air-blast nonsense.
These are not mine suggestions. I saw them on this thread. Your special buddies out to help.

Last edited by Mikeys; 2nd September 2012 at 05:29 PM.
Mikeys is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2012, 05:37 PM   #267
Montag451
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 408
Have you ever been on a plane?

Is a bus or train a bubble of air?

Do you think if the whole plane was compressed into a solid mass it would have been able to break through?

Please answer these simple questions, they may help me understand your reasoning.
Montag451 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2012, 05:38 PM   #268
Montag451
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 408
Oops double post
Montag451 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2012, 05:43 PM   #269
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,045
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
so... .
How rigid were the towers? How much did they sway? You don't do reality based answers, or what?

Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
pushing a bubble filled with air through a damn strong wall. .
Flight 175, not a bubble based on your failed concept of reality. Real people killed by real terrorists that you apologize for.

A 300,000 pounds bubble.


Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
Was this energy compacted into a solid as is the case with bullets? If not, analogy does not apply.
Once again, proof you don't do physics.
Oh, now shotguns don't work. Good one, you lack of science is showing.

Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
to a flock of birds(at a risk)
The wings are very strong, or they would fall apart at high speed. You don't understand engineering, and aircraft. This is the best you can do, or are you saving more delusional lies for your finally. Why are you so gullible?

Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
I think it was the only plane that hit anything that day in America. And I don't think it had passengers on board.
Why not spread a lie based on your ignorance? Have you told the relatives and families of those killed? Have you told your lies to anyone in their face? You like to spread lies, apologizing for terrorists.

Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
These are not mine suggestions. I saw them on this thread. Your special buddies out to help.
You posted the dumbest answers possible, you are doing a parody of a failed 911 truth follower?

Funny how you waited to do your 911 lies; standard junk for someone who has failed before. A sleeper account; did you loose your password in 2009? lol, you never took physics, and recycle failed claims from 911 truth.

Got the numbers yet for your proof 175 did not decelerate?
Your numbers yet for why 175 would stop at the shell?
Got math?

Last edited by beachnut; 2nd September 2012 at 05:54 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2012, 05:50 PM   #270
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,489
Originally Posted by Montag451 View Post
The material only really changes how quickly the energy (and inertia) disperses. Granted aluminum is softer than steel, but so is lead. If the lead is moving fast enough it will break through a steel sheet. It gets deformed in the process but the inertia carries it through.

Often harder materials are less easily able to withstand impact. They are hard because their structure does nit tend to allow their crystalline structure (as in the case of steel) to flow and deform around an impact. This is one reason we use steel instead of cast iron these day.
I once tested some 1/2" cast iron plate against .30 caliber light-armor piercing rifle ammunition and standard, soft core, expanding hunting-type ammunition. The steel-jacketed, steel core AP bullet approximated an elastic collision, bouncing off and leaving only a shallow crater. The soft core bullet acted inelastically, flattening itself against the iron plate and transferring the rest of its energy to the target, and blew a hole about twice its own diameter through the cast iron.

Last edited by Redwood; 2nd September 2012 at 05:51 PM. Reason: Better phrasing.
Redwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2012, 05:50 PM   #271
Mikeys
Muse
 
Mikeys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 501
Originally Posted by Montag451 View Post
Have you ever been on a plane?

Is a bus or train a bubble of air?

Do you think if the whole plane was compressed into a solid mass it would have been able to break through?

Please answer these simple questions, they may help me understand your reasoning.
Does it get dark at night in southern hemisphere?
Mikeys is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2012, 05:58 PM   #272
Montag451
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 408
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
Does it get dark at night in southern hemisphere?
I'll take it that means yes to all of them then?
Montag451 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2012, 06:22 PM   #273
atavisms
Critical Thinker
 
atavisms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 315
'No planes' claims are disinformation. You know, 'nonsense as a weapon.'
But look at the FACTS and you will find the demolition theory is far and away the most satisfactory in explaining observations. Why do you think that no investigators tested for explosives, ever!?
A skyscraper implodes symmetrically, two others -nearly the largest on earth, are converted into powder and pieces of steel it islogical to think explosives may have beeninvolved.

Despite that fact that historically the level of destruction at any bombing or fire site has been used as the determinant in such situations, that was not done here.
Despite regulations indicating it should have been done, as the firefighters at firefighters for 911 truth so aptly point out.
__________________
“Fire and the structural damage . . . would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated”
-Dr. Jonathan Barnett, Professor of Fire Protection Engineering at Worcester Polytechnic Institute
http://smu.gs/jvzZxu

Last edited by atavisms; 2nd September 2012 at 06:26 PM.
atavisms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2012, 06:22 PM   #274
Mikeys
Muse
 
Mikeys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 501
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
How rigid were the towers? How much did they sway? You don't do reality based answers, or what?
More flexible construction does not make it weaker. It makes it stronger and better when absorbing impact, so i don't see where you are heading here.
Quote:
Why not spread a lie based on your ignorance? Have you told the relatives and families of those killed? Have you told your lies to anyone in their face? You like to spread lies, apologizing for terrorists.
"Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists". That's my favorite, it really is.
Quote:
Got the numbers yet for your proof 175 did not decelerate?
Your numbers yet for why 175 would stop at the shell?
Got math?
The shell of the plane and surely not the front part could travel through that wall at any speed. It's an illusion. You have been hypnotized.

Last edited by Mikeys; 2nd September 2012 at 06:25 PM.
Mikeys is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2012, 06:25 PM   #275
Montag451
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 408
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post

The shell of the plane and surely not the front part could travel through that wall at any speed.
Why?
Montag451 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2012, 06:32 PM   #276
atavisms
Critical Thinker
 
atavisms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 315
[quote=Mikeys;8587796]
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post


so...

pushing a bubble filled with air through a damn strong wall.

Was this energy compacted into a solid as is the case with bullets? If not, analogy does not apply.


to a flock of birds(at a risk)


I think it was the only plane that hit anything that day in America. And I don't think it had passengers on board.


These are not mine suggestions. I saw them on this thread. Your special buddies out to help.
such baseless claims as these are absurd and only hurt the cause of 911 truth.
I have never seen so many disinformaiton victims in my life! No wonder people are so confused about 9/11

Here this: comes from Government scientists:
'The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation. Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment ...that liquefied the steel. The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.'
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...WTC_apndxC.htm

Talk to people about that! not baseless and offensive claims pretending to represent 9/11 truth. No people - one plane? wow.
To the people who read; this guys claims have NOTHING to do with 911 truth which is based in well documented facts. Many of them.
Not baseless and offensive (!) assertions
__________________
“Fire and the structural damage . . . would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated”
-Dr. Jonathan Barnett, Professor of Fire Protection Engineering at Worcester Polytechnic Institute
http://smu.gs/jvzZxu
atavisms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2012, 06:35 PM   #277
Montag451
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 408
Hells teeth Mikeys, even other truthers think your ideas are whacko.
Montag451 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2012, 06:40 PM   #278
atavisms
Critical Thinker
 
atavisms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 315
A Bubble?? For your information the two planes that hit the Towers were half-loaded with fuel for their cross country trips, meaning they each had approximately 11000 gallons of fuel in the wings. At 8 pounds per gallon, the fuel, the massive engines, and landing gear were the most substantial parts of the plane and moving at such rapid speed created tremendous force. You can see how the South Tower strike a piece of the plane flies right through the building and how those fire balls exploded so massively outside and inside of the buildings. Nothing bubble-like about it except your uniformed opinions and baseless assertions.
__________________
“Fire and the structural damage . . . would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated”
-Dr. Jonathan Barnett, Professor of Fire Protection Engineering at Worcester Polytechnic Institute
http://smu.gs/jvzZxu
atavisms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2012, 06:41 PM   #279
Mikeys
Muse
 
Mikeys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 501
Originally Posted by Montag451 View Post
Why?
because it couldn't. Aluminum composite the plane was made of would burst into dust right at the point of impact. What else do you expect?
Mikeys is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2012, 06:46 PM   #280
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,489
Quote:
Originally posted by Mikeys

We were already down that road. Kinetic energy could do the trick of crashing the wall on impact. Why not. It would also immediately turn the shell into nothing. So, what made the little hole on the other side of the building It could not have been the bow of the plane. It had been destroyed on impact.
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Why would this be? Have you heard the phase "mater can not be created or destroyed"? How about Sir Isaac Newton, ever hear of him? He was smart.
In TrutherUniverse, when an object loses its structural integrity, its mass drops to zero.
Redwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:33 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.