evidence of "no-planes"

Discussion in '9/11' started by n0spam, Jan 26, 2014.

  1. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    If they're just cartoons, then it should be easy to prove them wrong right n0spam? All the engineers that support the truthers should have no problem in producing their own analysis showing that it's NOT possible right n0spam? 12+ years and nobody has done ANYTHING like this from the truter side.

    Why not? Where's is you proof that the plane should NOT have penetrated like it did?

    This coming from someone who can't produce math and calculations to support their beliefs. How funny!

    :roflol:
     
  2. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Well n0spam? Do you see the tail slow down in this collision? Or are you just ignoring this question because it goes against what you think?
     
  3. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    The entire hologram/space beam/no planes weirdness seems to be invented by racist political trolls trying to see just how far they could bilk people.

    I refer to my two posts here based on some Internet research:

    Post I
    Post 2

    I can start a separate thread. But its interesting how the very same people will swallow all sorts of snake oil on the flimsiest of pretexts want to hand wave this documented connection between truther theories and the fringe racist politics.

    The short version is there is no "evidence" for so called "no planes".
     
  4. 7forever

    7forever Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    1,726
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    The holes in the towers are completely irreconcilable. The south tower hole is at least three times smaller. Did something smaller hit it, or did no plane impact either tower?

    [​IMG][​IMG]
     
  5. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I get tired of telling you this,but you need your eyes checked...And to learn about perspective
     
  6. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    7 says the holes are to small to be real.
    Bob says the holes are to big to be real.

    Neither can provide any evidence for their stance.
     
  7. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Both gashes show a full length impression of the wings that is wing tip to wing tip
    the wings had penetrated, or at least according to the official story.
     
  8. n0spam

    n0spam New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2014
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So if I were to look at it from the POV
    of say somebody who believes that a virgin gave birth to a deity in human form,
    and anybody who doesn't believe this is considered mentally deficient.... oh well.

    What I would like to see in debates of this nature
    is a totally color-blind & focused attention to the topic at hand
    and NOT bring up peripheral subjects when we are debating the validity of the claim
    that hijacked airliners struck the WTC towers.

    Focus
    Pinky.....
    FOCUS ..
     
  9. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    According to whom? Cite your source for this claim.
     
  10. Stndown

    Stndown Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    889
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It doesn't work that way Boss.
     
  11. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Can't come up with evidence, eh Boss?

    I see you're going to start mindlessly parroting me, now. You gotta keep earning that paycheck somehow, huh?
     
  12. Stndown

    Stndown Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    889
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, actually I was testing a theory and I'm done now. You're here for one reason only.
     
  13. LogicallyYours

    LogicallyYours New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,233
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Smaller?...how about this. Count the number of columns damaged, across the bottom on each photo...and you tell me, how the damaged area is "smaller".

    Why is it you don't bother to check the validity of your nutter posts?

    - - - Updated - - -

    which is what happened that day. Shocker?...no, reality.
     
  14. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Note the swept back design of the wings and note that at the point
    in time when the wing has penetrated the wall to the trailing edge
    of the wing at the wing root next to the fuselage, there is still the
    wing tip hanging out totally unsupported at that point, and this
    is expected to penetrate the wall because it was going oh so fast.
    oh my..... and to make maters worse, the aircraft is alleged to have
    contacted the wall at an angle such that the port side wing struck
    the wall significantly ahead of the starboard side wing, so a huge
    portion of the starboard side wing would be totally unsupported
    at the previously described point of penetration. This alone is a show stopper.
    there were no commercial airliners uses as weapons that day.
    if there was any sort of physical object in use, it would have to be
    something that was purpose-built for the job of penetrating a wall.
     
  15. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    90,331
    Likes Received:
    22,096
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Each wing weighed tons since they were full of fuel. In fact had more density than the fuselage because of that. Go figure. When you know nothing of aircraft you are liable come to your erroneous conclusions.
     
  16. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So you present the theory that since the wing tip was full of fuel, it had so much mass
    that it was to be considered unstoppable, is that it? What prevented the wing from rotating
    and slapping flat against the building accomplishing no penetration at all?

    The possibilities are huge, why limit the possibilities to just penetration?
    the two aircraft having penetrated ( allegedly ) and in all cases, 4 out of 4
    wing tips having penetrated the wall, what are the odds?
     
  17. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    90,331
    Likes Received:
    22,096
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Physics, something you don't understand.
     
  18. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    probability .... too much for you? or would you like to learn something?
     
  19. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    90,331
    Likes Received:
    22,096
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Probability has to do with math. Your lack of understanding of aircraft and physics are the problem.
     
  20. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So an aircraft penetrating a wall as was alleged in the case of "FLT11" and "FLT175"
    violates no laws of physics? is that what you think?
     
  21. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    90,331
    Likes Received:
    22,096
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL, why would it violate any laws of physics? Do you think a bolted together construction is impenetrable? Do you understand sheer? Do you understand what aluminum does when in contact with a small cross section object? You really don't understand much of anything which makes it look more like magic to you.
     
  22. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Your descriptions speak volumes, "small cross section object"
    note that the wall was composed of 14" steel box columns with at least a 0.25"
    wall thickness and there were many of them, the aircraft nose would have to
    break 5 or 6 of these columns to penetrate, and then the wings would have to
    cut at least another dozen each.

    what are the odds of a wingtip to wingtip gash in not one but two skyscrapers
    having been hit by ( allegedly ) Boeing 757/767 airliners.
    Major problem here is that the aircraft ( flown by hijackers ) could not
    possibly be expected to hit the wall perfectly perpendicular and therefore
    would have all sorts of massive stress forces that would be asymmetrically
    distributed throughout the aircraft, in short the aircraft should have broken up
    upon impact and done very little damage to the tower.

    The other show stopper here is the fact that it has never
    been proven that any commercial airliner can operate at >500 mph
    @ less than a thousand ft altitude. and this is critical to the argument
    that the aircraft did what it was alleged to have done. Note that KE=1/2M*V^2
    at lower speeds the aircraft has significantly smaller KE.
    but it can not be proven that it is even possible to do what was said to have
    been done, where is BOEING on this subject? they could clear the air
    right now, but will they?
     
  23. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    90,331
    Likes Received:
    22,096
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Egypt air crash of a 767 many years ago seemed to indicate that the airframe stayed intact in the dive until after the plane passed mach 1 in a dive. So 500+ mph is not that unfeasible. Shallow dive, full power, no care from the pilot. Just because an aircraft passes VNE does not mean it disintegrates immediately. VNE is design for longer life and safer operation.
     
  24. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    is the speed attainable in a controlled manner, the Egypt air incident
    was with the aircraft out-of-control how does one not only attain the
    speed in level flight near sea level, but maintain control?
    both "FLT11" and "FLT175" made precision hits to the WTC towers
    in that the airliners struck their targets with a + - 25 ft margin.
    great flying for a hijacker.... don't you think?
     
  25. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    90,331
    Likes Received:
    22,096
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Evidently so. BTW, it was not level flight but a descent. You maintain control by flying the plane. 25 foot margin would be approx 2 story margin and they did not hit the same floors. Flying is easy, it is the landings that can be a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*). In this case they 'landed' in buildings.
     

Share This Page