No-planers: I challenge you to explain how all the videos and photos....

yes math includes numbers



there is some math

<<< MODERATOR EDIT: FLAMEBAIT >>

 

But you said those numbers were math and now they aren't? Go figure.

 

I'm not the one posting animations including clips from Stargate SG1.

 

of course they are all part of math

what do you think numbers that are used to solve equations are? Bubble gum?

- - - Updated - - -

I generally dont take people with seriously defective comprehension too seriously sorry

 

That's a cartoon. Apparently some of the posters at this thread slept through their junior high school science classes, especially the ones that covered Newton's 3rd Law. A Boeing commercial jet is basically an aluminum BASKET frame with a fiberglass nosecone. It it hits a 100-story steel-reinforced concrete building, the plane will crumple, the nosecone will be smashed, pieces of the plane will break off and fall into the street below. The "plane" will certainly NOT disappear smoothly into the builfding facade with zero impact, like a hot knofe through butter or Casper the Friendly Ghost. Unless the "plane" is a digitally fabricated "bad special effect"; as Peter Jennings correctly observes in this commentary. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCDu2V3yjS4

 

It's okay. I generally don't take people seriously who spam animated gifs as "evidence".

 

Ok, in response to the incessant demands for data

Ta-Da ..... Data .....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHSqs5y4kfQ

For info about the "hijacked airliners"
start in at 1:28:00 and get the INFORMATION.

have a nice day

: )

 

Actually the full quote was "It disappeared(s?) like a bad special effect."

And it was made by Evan Fairbanks.

Do you understand what metaphor and allusion is? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor

 

The penetration of "FTL11", "FLT175" & "FLT77" into
walls as if the aircraft were a hardened steel punch,
is not a description out of "incredulity" its stating a fact
that is the way that the official story would have it if
indeed the flights were real, however, there has to be
something else responsible for this action.

May I present an analog ....
if you strike a wall in your house right between two 2X4s
you will probably make a hole in the wall, however if you
strike exactly on a 2X4, you will find it very much harder to
achieve penetration. The wall of the WTC tower(s) was
constricted of 14" box columns on 40" centers, so, it has
its hard points and its not-so-hard points, and so for an
airliner ( that is itself made up of smaller bits connected together )
to penetrate the wall and do so as neatly and completely as
was alleged on the video, it would have to match up its strong
points with the points of the wall where the strength was needed.
not happening, the random distribution of the airliner bits to the
box columns would guarantee that the aircraft could not penetrate
as was alleged by the video.

 

Show the math that confirms this claim.

I anticipate more incredulity, but maybe you'll show me wrong. Good luck.

 

You've completely sidestepped the point this Saigirl person misrepresented and misattributed Fairbank's quote. The second might be a simple mistake, but the first is a sign someone is not debating in good faith.

 

Just to ask the question & anybody please feel free to
chime in with an opinion....

Do YOU, ( that is YOU personally, leave out the "experts" )
believe that an aluminum airliner should be able to penetrate
the wall of a steel framed skyscraper as was alleged to have
happened not once but twice "FLT11" & "FLT175" and not
break off wings or jet engines on the entry side of the wall
but move the entire aircraft into the building to completely
disappear inside before the fire ball of fuel explodes.
is that what you believe?

 

http://www.topendsports.com/biomechanics/video-analysis-speed.htm

Here is a little gift for you, less than a minute of search time,
look for "speed measurement using video" ..... There are
abundant links to this sort of thing. lots of software tools for
it also.

 

This whole tangent is ( I believe ) an attempt to sidestep the
real point of the OP in that the point is the aircraft is seen
to as much as melt into the side of the WTC tower, this
should set off alarms with people, but the whole days events
were designed to be psychological warfare and as such was
rather effective in fooling most of the people most of the time.
you know you can't fool all the people all the time.....

The serious problem here is that there is this B movie special
effect, that is being passed off as an airliner crashing into the
WTC tower. The BIG LIE has taken hold so well with so many
people that it may be a lost cause, but I continue to try & wake
people up to the fact that 9/11/2001 = the BIG LIE.

 

Argument from incredulity.

Show evidence for your claims.

 

and the NIST gets away with "showing evidence" that has
been falsified and people still believe the official load of BS.

Given precedent airliner crashes where the aircraft broke
up, what magic would cause the airliner to keep its shape
as it penetrated a wall as was alleged by the official story?

 

After decades of successful lies from the controlled corporate media ("lone nut assassin", Gulf of Tonkin "attack", "babies tossed out of incubators", "a mushroom cloud from Saddam's WMD", etc., etc., etc.), you would think that people might begin to exercise a little more discernment and critical judgement when they watch commercial TV "news" coverage. On the contrary: the TV-viewing public has become so narcotized and dumbed down, that the most childishly absurd and physically impossible CARTOONS can be passed off as real world "events". Psyops specialists at the Pentagon must have been laughiungn their asses off at the Evan Fairbanks "amateur footage", and how stupidly gullible Americans are. Who needs real TV "news" when all they have to broadcast are some out-takes from the latest Hollywood 'action film". LOL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isMtxbPdvzg http://www.greaterthings.com/News/Martial_Law/Turner_psyops.htm

 

This person writes so well, I thought I'd make note of that fact and state that this sez what needs to be, & so well.
Thank U!

 

Where is this precedent of a 767 smashing into a tube in tube structural design with spaced box columns made of 1/4" steel as the perimeter? Or are you suggesting that the data and physical properties from other crashes, such as planes into the ground, mountains, and other structures would yield correct data to make a determination if it could have happened or not?

 

have you ever heard of extrapolation?
also note that in the continuum from an
aircraft having to penetrate a wall of paper,
to an aircraft crashing into a granite mountain,
there is a whole range of things that can be expected to happen.
in the case of the WTC tower wall, the resistance of the wall is
to be something between the granite & paper obviously, and logically
we can expect that there would be significant resistance because the
WTC has stood through significant storms and survived. So in the
case of an airliner allegedly traveling 590 mph in air, and suddenly
encountering a wall, there should be a huge jolt, when the airliner
contacts the wall, however, there is none shown on any of the videos
that alleged to be a record of the event. WHY?
There is no validity at all to the argument
"oh but the airliner was going SOOO fast.... "
There would have to be a jolt upon contact with the wall and
a significantly violent jolt such to raise the probability of breaking
off wings, tail, stabilizer...... or? in two out of two cases, "FLT11"
and "FLT175" it is alleged that the aircraft simply made a smooth
transition into the building as if the wall offered up no more resistance
than a piece of paper.

 

When you have no clue what you are talking about, you come up with stuff like you just posted. Presented evidence and fact, you ignore it to favor your logical fallacies.

 

Don't just bust me, indicate exactly where
my argument is a "logical fallacy" ?

Please be detailed.

 

Argument from Personal Incredulity
Appeal to authority
Cherry picking
Argument from ignorance (Ad ignorantiam)
Confusing association with causation
Confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable
Non-Sequitur
Reductio ad absurdum

 

Wow, that its so totally clear
NOT!

you make accusations that my post
contains "Reductio ad absurdum"
but you do not attach the term to a
specific bit of my post. also where did I engage in "Appeal to authority"?

Please add detail.

 

I would dare to say that there is a possibility to be considered that they made use of an illusion meant just for the cameras. While ordinary holograms don't work
in daylight, there is also invisible light (infrared light for instance). Maybe a hologram that involved infrared, or a combination of different invisible wavelengths to composite the image of the plane. Or maybe an ultraviolet one? That would explain the bluish-black appearance of Flight 175 and a certain lack of reflections on it. Machinery that isn't really advanced can emit invisible light of all types that cameras can pick. Maybe they just created an image of invisible light frequencies that would look compelling for the cameras. Remember that the plane was a mere fly in the sky, it didn't need to look perfect.

Add other possibilities such as emitting some other combined waves across NYC, just to adjust and correct for the wave background. Could be part of the cause for the illnesses in the aftermath.