you guys need to get your stories straight one says it can slice through the other says significant damage which is it?
not quite like that but you are getting warmer We really need to see a pic of this block that the wing supposedly sliced through. I say total bunk! Cartoon physics! Never happen! (in the real world)
I and everyone else understands what post a pic to validate your claims means and everyone understands we dont see one from you. Surely they have a pic of that block sliced in half somewhere.
sorry but everyone can see it does not show the block cut in half by the wing. Just a lot of dust and **** flying everywhere. you need that to validate your claim without it your claim is not valid sorry
So do you think everyone is supposed to 'imagine' that smudge mess is plane? we are seriously supposed to belie ve those?
this one? We dont see the wing slicing through the wall, that is why we need to see a pic of the wall sliced by the wing, sure you have that somewhere? It was a impact test after all. They must have a pic of the sliced wall somewhere so you can prove you and beta are right.
I'm only asking to see the evidence you rely on to make such claims. The best evidence is to see that barrier sliced in half, doesn't that make sense to you also? Seriously how else will we know behind all that dust and all that stuff flying around in the air it seems to me the only way we can know for sure is to see the wall cut in half?
CAN YOU READ? I ask, because I gave you the video, the timestamp and a description of the concrete block! It is 12 feet thick! It was a test on the protective capability of the wall, not the plane disintegrating on impact. Oh wait, did you run away yet again on this totally obvious point? Yep! THE PLANE DISINTEGRATED! @Kokomojojo Did the plane disintegrate? Yes or no? Does this lead you to the mind-numbingly obvious conclusion that so would a passenger jet at over 500mph? In that crash test, the plane scored a large chunk in the center where the plane nose struck and the right wing made a sizeable indentation. It is one of the biggest jokes in history that amongst these daft claims about demolition and a whole barrage of variants about who did this heinous crime, lies the utterly moronic no-planes horseshit. Twenty years on and still this insane claim persists.
You still have that little problem, you 2 need to get your story straight between you. 12 foot thick hardened wall and the plane wings sliced right through it huh? the wings too huh? we still have not settled those claims from your camp. lets settle all those before you move the goal posts k? um...or maybe you have nothing to support your claims again? I bet thats it!
Whats mind numbingly obvious is that your camp has nothing showing the test results. yet we are seeing all those groundless slicing claims and citation requests dodged. Nothing went through the block, Id bet thats why we dont see a citation
I don't have a camp. You were given the full analysis video with noted damage to the reinforced 12 feet thick concrete block. I Nothing went through the block. But the wing certainly took a sizable chunk out of it. Would you like me to repost the video? Or do you think you can find it all by yourself? Oh wait, did you run away yet again on this totally obvious point? Yep! THE PLANE DISINTEGRATED! @Kokomojojo Did the plane disintegrate? Yes or no? Does this lead you to the mind-numbingly obvious conclusion that so would a passenger jet at over 500mph?
Noted? Noting is not an analysis, much less a full analysis. Now if you had force measurements, and a picture of the damage that might have some value if it applies. It leads me to the mind numbingly obvious conclusion that there would have been a disintegrated plane laying all over the ground 'outside' of the wtc, pentagon, and in that field, obviously, but there wasnt! Clearly they used bombs to blow the hell out of it. So we still have Shine saying the wing sliced through and you saying nothing sliced through, sounds like the debunker camp needs to at least come out here without such mind numbingly obvious contradictions.
At least you appear to agree with me that it is not possible for the wing to slice through that wall. I dont buy into blobby-smudges pretending they are planes and seeing things that arent there and the cartoon physics like the debunker camp does.
Fairly annoyed now. You are deliberately pretending not to see where I posted a FULL ANALYSIS of the damage! I gave you a video, a time stamp and told you what happened! Four posts of me telling you this and you still come out with this crap! http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/9-11con-the-pentagon.598106/page-9#post-1074248720 No. Sadly your mind numbing conclusion is just mind numbingly wrong. This wasn't a 12ft thick concrete block. Duh. Oh wait, did you run away yet again on this totally obvious point? Yep! THE PLANE DISINTEGRATED! @Kokomojojo Did the plane disintegrate? Yes or no? Does this lead you to the mind-numbingly obvious conclusion that so would a passenger jet at over 500mph?
Oh? We saw no disintegration in either the Pentagon or the towers or out in the field. All we saw was an invincible airplane that could fly through buildings as easy as air! Seems something is rotten in Denmark with the picture you have presented, (as the saying would go). Apparently you don't see the massive contradiction in your claims.
first off, I never said the wing sliced all the way through the barrier but it quite obvious that something is cutting through the right side barrier. I’m sorry you can’t see that. I can’t find an after pic of the barrier, apparently doesn’t exist. It wasn’t an explosion test so much of the fuel was replaced with water including inside the wings … it doesn’t matter though because you’re hung up on the cgi plane nonsense.
Nor should you, it entered the building at 500+mph. That shouldn't confuse you. Stop using "we". The world witnessed a colossal impact, with vast kinetic energy. The kinetic energy was orders of magnitude more than that needed to break through the walls. There is no contradiction, here let me explain. Big 12 foot thick, reinforced concrete block, stops plane. Normal building exteriors not so much. First one designed to stop plane. Second one not so much. Google dictionary. Select "contradiction". Learn what it actually means.
You haven't even proven that a plane existed at this point. The world witnessed a super stupendous colossal TV show! What you witnessed was cartoon physics that at Hollywood does a much better job on than the government. No One believes this is true, well maybe you do I don't know since you saw it on TV and you believe what you saw on TV you probably do? says who? Don't you think it's a good idea to at least post a citation for this super colossal kinetic energy that you talk about all the time? Yeah it means you're saying too contradictory things at the same time, you know in logic that's like saying yes-no for the same question. You made the case that the plane disintegrates at that speed however the plane did not disintegrate at that speed in any place that they allegedly impacted and now you're trying to convince us that it's different with the WTC and the Pentagon and the field. Clearly I'm not the one who's confused here
oh so in other words if I say the bullet went through the deer it means it stopped halfway huh? Doesn't sound like we're speaking the same English language does it? You did use the word through if you are confessing that you improperly stated it okay I'll buy that. fuel doesn't explode it conflagrates. There's a huge difference you only get a few lousy feet per second how to fuel conflagration compared to a real explosive. Well if you don't have an after pic then how do you expect anyone to believe what you say is correct much less true? I saw the wingtip go right past the block and I'd be willing to bet you that I'm correct and you're wrong. Why you certainly can't expect me to believe smudges and blobs are planes can you? Oh wait I guess you can. Well I'm sorry blobs and smudges are not planes blobs and smudges are blobs and smudges.
That's often a problem with conspiracy theorists. Especially ones who seek attention so desperately and want to convince the world of their batshittery. There is a very accurate statement to describe this: You cannot reason somebody out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. When anyone believes something to this level of forehead slapping insanity, there really is nothing you can do or say. Notice that all the other "911 truthers" have gone quiet and show little support for this hogwash.
It was a plane. I strongly suggest you entertain the very real scenario whereby you may be over-estimating your "physics-skills", your logic, your critical reasoning and what you determine is your objectivity. All of those appear to be far inferior to your English language "skills". Just for any viewer who hasn't worked out it was a plane, which is probably nobody.
