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

Discussion in '9/11' started by LogicallyYours, Jun 23, 2014.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    If I had data pertaining to a plane going through a piece of paper or the ground, please tell me how I would be able to extrapolate that data and use it to predict/show what would happen to a plane crashing into a complex entity such as the perimeter wall?!

    WHAT?! Your basing your claim that their should have been a jolt of some sort based on your "storm resistance data of the WTC towers"?!?!

    Are you kidding me?

    Why is there no visible jolt to the jet in this video? Why do we not see the tail slow down after initial impact? The jet is WAY smaller than a 767 and the wall it smashes into is much stronger and thicker than the perimeter facade of the WTC towers. Extrapolate the data in the video and tell me you can come up with seeing a "jolt" or "slowing" of the 767 impacting the perimeter facade. That's a 12' thick concrete wall and the jet is travelling at about 480 mph.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUwfj8-bcsc

    Again, why was there no jolt in the above video?
     
  2. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    simple, look at the video again
    there is an event that is as much as a bomb
    went off when the F4 impacted the wall.
    there is your "jolt" in explosive form.
     
  3. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But the tail didn't fall off from the jolt, it just 'melted' into the wall. LOL
     
  4. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    if you mean the F4, the tail was turned into aluminum confetti.
    There is another significant difference between the F4 test and
    the hit to the WTC tower(s), the F4 was lined up totally perpendicular
    to the wall, the hijacked airliners could not possibly have been so,
    and the angle makes a difference in the probability of the aircraft
    breaking up before penetrating.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Would you believe
    Argument from incredulity?

    what?
     
  5. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Moving goalposts are you genericBob? You seem to forget that you wanted to see the DECELERATION of the plane. Let me refresh your memory...
    So I'll ask you again genericBob.

    Where is the visible DECELERATION of the jet in that video?
     
  6. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The F4 was consumed in the explosive impact of the
    forces set in motion when hitting the wall ( a wall that
    was designed to not be penetrated ) so there would
    only be the cloud of aluminum confetti in front of it
    for it to have to travel through, in the case of the alleged
    "FLT11" & "FLT175" the aircraft was in the act of penetrating
    a wall, and the video clearly shows that the aircraft did not
    break up & produce a cloud of aluminum confetti, therefore
    the tail section of the aircraft still had the solid mass of the
    aircraft between it and the wall, so then with that explained,
    why shouldn't the tail of the aircraft be seen decelerating?
    The argument that only the part of the aircraft unseen, that
    is inside the building was the part that was being destroyed and
    the part outside the building kept its shape, WHY?
    What magic made the rest of the aircraft, the part that could be
    seen outside the wall, keep its shape and not have wings break
    off, or jet engines break off ...... or?
     
  7. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    BS!!!!

    You even state it IMPACTED the wall. Impact equals deceleration in your eyes. Why do we not see the tail slow down upon IMPACT?
     
  8. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So, a jet hitting an impenetrable wall will not show any slowing down but a jet hitting a penetrable wall will? LOL
     
  9. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    And this is where your lack of knowledge regarding engineering comes into play. You are making claims that can be mathematically modeled and calculated to be shown as completely wrong. It was been mathematically modeled and calculated to have been possible to have happened the way it did.

    If those FEAs were made up from fake calculations and adjusted to show what they wanted, one of you gazillion truther engineers would have provided their own FEAs to show that was the case. Not one person in 13+ years has come forward to to that.

    Case closed.
     
  10. Sai Girl

    Sai Girl New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2014
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sad, but sometimes amusing, to observe the illogical contortions that people put themselves through just to rationalize away the obvious: a physically IMPOSSIBLE video image, produced in some cheap Hollywood-style digital simulation, is passed off as mainstream media "news" coverage. Why does this work ? A huge chunk of the population has been rendered scientifically illiterate with respect to the most basic foundations of physics and even simple common sense. Yet more "educated" segments of the population, presunably capable of seeing through the cartoonish character of the image, still cling stubbornly to their hysterical denial of blatantly sloppy TV fakery; when it is so manifestly obvious upon inspection. How is this possible ? Why ? Moral cowardice. 9/11 "truth" (and truth in general) is not ultimately about rationality or intellect.
    There's nothing all that challenging about grasping the essential truths of 9/11 and their implications for us as adults, citizens, parents or human beings. We understand the geopolitical motives that drive false-flag psyops. But 9/11 just ain't "rocket science". It's about moral courage versus moral COWARDICE. The central role of the corporate mass media in the 9/11 psyop, like so much of their long history of deception and manipulation, must be hysterically denied AT ALL COSTS. Even at the humiliating price of pretending to be stunningly ignorant, or just plain stupid. THAT is the worst damage done by the legacy of 9/11: The destruction of cognition itself, as a consequence of moral cowardice. Orwell understood this process and described it with crystal clarity and uncanny prescience.
     
  11. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Yet within all the "hot air" that you let loose in the above post, nowhere did you provide any example of why you think the videos are faked or what basic foundations of physics were broken.

    Since you seem to deem yourself as being included in the "more educated segment of the population", why don't you explain your understanding of the physics behind the collapses without the "geopolitical" undertones.
     
  12. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Lets examine in detail the alleged penetration into the tower
    by "FLT175", when speaking of the KE of the aircraft, people
    of course calculate using the full mass of the entire aircraft
    or at least an educated guess as to how much mass the entire
    aircraft would be. so with that said, then upon the penetration
    of the tower wall, now only the bit that has contacted the wall
    and has been shredded inside the building is to be considered
    the rest of the mass of the aircraft still out side & because its
    outside of the point of penetration, its still totally unaffected by
    the collision with the wall, WHAT?

    Just for the sake of doing the math with some really crude
    figures, how about a starting speed of 590 mph and an
    ending speed of 540 mph by the time the aircraft has penetrated
    half way through, and that is 22 g ..... now with that sort of
    force imposing on the whole aircraft, why would it stay together?
    The whole argument is a farce, note that the holes in WTC1 & 2
    are not totally neat round holes and if you superimpose a circle
    on the tower in the middle of the gash, that is a circle that is
    representative of the size of the airliner body, you will see that
    it doesn't match up and doesn't allow space for the body of the
    aircraft to pass without some serious ripping of the airliner in
    the process of entering the building, and with all of that, no
    major bits of the alleged airliners end up in the street below.
    and as for the famous Murray st. jet engine, I have a question
    where did the engine actually land, if if landed in the street,
    were is the divot caused buy this heavy object falling from 900 ft up?
    and by the look of the engine, it allegedly fell such as to land straight
    up in the position that it was photographed, but just try an experiment
    if you will, take a tin-can and throw it up and observe it landing, note that
    most of the time, it will land on a side not an end. the very least likely landing is for the thing to land end first. This is a characteristic of 9/11
    the least likely thing to happen, is what was alleged to have happened.
     
  13. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Because the mass is still in motion and part of the wall is no longer there.
     
  14. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    and so, you allege that an airliner when forced to decelerate
    at a rate that causes >22 g stress to the structure of the airliner
    will keep its shape, not loose a wing or an engine or have the tail
    break off or split the fuselage .... or anything.... right?
     
  15. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    To revisit this, I saw an alleged rebuttal that
    included all sorts of terms like "Reductio ad absurdum "
    and I asked for elaboration & explanation and
    got nothing, what is up with the fancy terms?
    and why are you choosing to label my posts
    without need to be precise as to exactly what bit
    of my posts provoked the terms?
     
  16. Sai Girl

    Sai Girl New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2014
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think you missed my main point about 9/11: it ain't rocket science. And I'm insulted by the suggestion that it takes anything beyond an 8th grade level of basic science, to grasp the basics of 9/11. It's about as banal as you can get. Just another dirty, lying insurance scam from landlord Larry Silverstein's position. Mobbed-up: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/owners.html
     
  17. Sai Girl

    Sai Girl New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2014
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I hate to use this term, but I've seen it referred to in some blogs as a case of "Jewish lightning"; an old slur describing the classic "torch your own business" and pass it off as an "act of God" or "natural disaster" => to collect massively on the insurance. Think of the cost of asbestos removal from those behemoth Towers, most of whose floors were unoccupied, hence losing money. You surely must concede, in terms of immediate cash MOTIVE, that 9/11 may have been a tragedy for most, but for some it was a financial BONANZA. http://www.storyleak.com/world-trade-center-owner-larry-silverstein-sues-airlines-billions-911/ http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue8/Don_Paul.cfm
     
  18. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I asked an old Jew about Jewish Lightening and he had never heard of that term. It is a term used by antisemites to disparage Jews. Just more typical bigotry.

    - - - Updated - - -

    You are right, it doesn't take anything beyond 8th grade level of basic science to come up with conspiracy theories. Many here have already proven that.
     
  19. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, I didn't make any such allegation.
    The plane was destroyed.

    And this is just a pet peeve: the word you want is "lose", not "loose".
     
  20. Sai Girl

    Sai Girl New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2014
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Now come on folks, you must admit: WTC7 at least, is already a well-defined "no brainer". Perhaps the name of this thread should really be "9/11 Ain't Rocket Science" .. and never was.

    Some things are prima facie self-evident and intutively obvious to even the most casual observer:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk

    And naturally the predictable fallback rationalization will be: "But WHY?, WHY?, WHY - would someone have a motive to do such an un-landlordish thing as to blow up their own real estate investmernt??? "
    And that's where evidence of MOTIVE (and possible or likely criminal foreknowledge) gets entered into the record.
    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070622111911AA6Rm7q
     
  21. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Indeed: it was hit by a building which resulted in uncontrolled, unfought fires and eventually collapsed, just as the FDNY knew it would.
     
  22. Sai Girl

    Sai Girl New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2014
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And since I'm establishing the standards of this discussion as aspiring to those of a flat criminal investigation and proceedings, I must at this time introduce the name of a possible high-level "co-conspirator" in this crime: Israeli citizen Frank Lowy. Frank Lowy - Owner of Westfield America. In May 2001, Westfield paid $US127 million for a 99-year lease on the retail area beneath the New York World Trade Center.
    Lowy, originally from Australia was a member of the Golani Brigade, and fought in the Israeli war of independence.
    Lowy apparently steered clear of the WTC on 9/11. http://www.911review.com/motive/insurance.html His involvement will turn out to be critical in broadening the case from mere insurance fraud, racketeering and murder - to possible treason; given Lowy's stature in the Israeli Mossad.
     
  23. Sai Girl

    Sai Girl New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2014
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So you see, I have much higher aspirations (and certainly greater ambitions) than merely "proving" or validating some abstract principle of basic physics. Although some elementary physical principles would probably have to be introduced in order to clearly demonstrate that use of the memes "collapses" or "collapsed" (while it might be deceptively legal to describe the demolition of WTC7) would clearly be a flat out LIE and Orwellian brainwashing, when used to describe these 100-story skyscrapers actually EXPLODING and almost instantly dissolving into dust, smoke and a proportionally small pile of debris- WITHIN MERE SECONDS. http://losalamos911truth.blogspot.com/
     
  24. Sai Girl

    Sai Girl New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2014
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And I humbly thank everyone reading this, for their time and attention. As well as this forum, for allowing me to make this case.
     
  25. Sai Girl

    Sai Girl New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2014
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's pretty obvious that they didn't "collapse". So why is that the only word "allowed" within polite "mainstream" discourse. When we know it's a manifest LIE. The Towers were blown to kingdom come. Massively. Instantly. Totally. A simple picture. Little or no "physics" required. http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger2/2357/1113357475496390/1600/155732/gse_multipart74070.jpg http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger2/2357/1113357475496390/240/218102/gse_multipart8475.jpg http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger2/2357/1113357475496390/1600/826834/gse_multipart54512.jpg
     

Share This Page