It was a bomb, not a second plane, who said a second plane...I saw it no second plane!

All I seen was some flaming stuff, the likelihood of it being landing gear is vitually zippo.

that and in todays world, anything the guv does not put up in a very timely manner is fixed. In other words planted. Like the videos, most have been photoshopped even those that say raw, they are not. They all have the signature of the artist if you know what to look for. Nope aint telling lol

 

Disinfo Recognition - Rule 24: bullshit statements like that statement proves the claims cannot be backed up.

I think modern mathematics can scale it just fine!

Thats admission that believers cant imagine much less actually calculate a rational corresponding number.

It just has to be really really BIG, too big to imagine!

 

Yes we see that but I try anyway!

That is true!

Bravo!
Glad you agree with me!

WTF?

This was going so good too!

Now the claim is that a 7x7 only has 1 inch contact area?

Ok thats like over the top out there! '20,000 leagues beyond the twilight zone claim!'

Liquid metal! Welcome to the twilight ZONE folks!

Now we see a quote from the long proven delusional quack Meigs. omfg doesnt get weaker than that! LMAO!

No one that attended required high school science classes in merca is foolish enough to buy into such an insanely stupid theory that Meigs is selling.

A bigger problem it that its a just another computer model not an actual test as I have shown on the previous page.

 

TOTAL DISINFO!

INSANE CLAIMS!

LEAD MELTS at 50% as much heat (approx 600d) as is takes to melt aluminum (1200d) and as we can see THE LEAD TRAVELING AT 550 MPH IS NOT MELTED, IT IS NOT FLUID!

IT BOUNCED OFF THE STEEL!

This is a 45acp at 800ft/sec:



This bullshit claim of SUPER INTENSE HEAT SUPER BS claim couldnt even melt lead at 1/2 the temp it takes to melt aluminum and thats after being preheated because it was fired from a gun where burning gunpowder and barrel friction preheats the lead!

 

Well what a load of noise. The bottom line is this, you can do your best to educate somebody, but it is impossible to understand it for them. We have a passenger airplane with colossal kinetic energy. We have an engineering professor agreeing with my statement and then we have this guy. This "there were no planes on 911" guy. Jumping up and down showing stunning ignorance of obvious physics, yanking everyone's chain. Getting all butt-hurt because nobody wants to believe his insane claims. Loads of silly little emoticons and "LMAO'S" with a stunning display of useless grammar.

I think I need somebody to help me get away from this stupid, moronic thread.

 

Here you go folks, that claim concedes to no idea how much! Lots and lots and a really realy lot!

DEMONSTRATES NOTHING ON POINT. pure

May as well compare fighter to a cessna!

Bullets splay and fragment under compression leaving SLIVERS of lead on the ground, not melted molten blobs. In merca we all have guns and know this!

One stupid set of claims after another as we are taken into the twilight zone with dishonest wacked out planer Meigs claims!

Its not possible to HONESTLY compare rounds fired at 4000ft/sec to those at 800ft/sec. (800ft/sec the alleged speed of the plane)
that is what the above post does!

Yes a tank round approaching 7000ft/sec will melt a round on impact, it only needs to reach 600d.
That SAME tank round moving the SAME SPEED will bounce off because it cant even reach temps as high as 600deg.


Its highly doubtful ANYONE actually believes the utterly insane claims made by believers! People are smart enough to comprehend when they are being scammed when examples that are not comparable are used after we can see the damn bullet bounce off.

It would be helpful to see honest posts like mine that have bullet speeds the same as the plane LIKE MINE.

That video only proves obtuse obfuscation, a willingness to peddle any bullshit that can be thrown out to save face.

 

Here is a 22, nearly twice the speed and still cant reach 600 to cause melting and INTENSE HEATING from MASSIVE KINETIC ENERGY.

All that pretended technical jargon sounded really good though didnt it? LOL




Like most bullets (extreme excepted) they only flake into slivers and leave behind GALLING!

Not even close to melting or anything intense, INTENSE, INTENSE HEAT!

Believers are pedaling DISINFO claims out here with dishonest (spun) evidence.

 

Deleted

 

Utterly pathetic. Like arguing with a brick wall.

 

I know, sux to be wrong and worse when someone incontrovertibly proves it!
Oh I dug into the archives of another site I used to argue 911 on, wait till you see what I have in store for the planer camp! Trust me, you'll be back

 

Why did you delete that:
"Argue with someone else, I'm out"

 

Yet here you are still.


You have made one screw up after another. I can't actually recall where you have got a single thing right. You now appear to be comparing a lightweight solid bullet projectile with a 100 ton airplane and think they have the same kinetic energy.

Even when a fully qualified structural engineer explains it to you, you, the man who conceded everything, still think you know stuff that absolutely everyone viewing this thread knows you don't.

 

Meanwhile, the most obvious, facepalming evidence - the impact goes INWARDS.

 

stop trying to change the subject!

Excuse me but last time I checked lead bullets are far heavier than lightweight aluminum, and therefore have much more intense INTENSE heating properties.

Every imagined port in the storm peeps, here we go, said he was out and that didnt even last 10 minutes! LMAO I always concede to insane claims.

I cant help it you are wrong, sorry, I dont make the physics rules.

Yet here you are still.

I had a hunch you couldnt resist arguing with me! Obsession maybe?

 

Oh btw, @Betamax101, If I take my sony I cant stand perpendicular to a 45acp bullet flying the same speed as the alleged plane and capture it, how the hell was hezerkani able to capture any images of a plane moving 800ft/second on a home camcorder? What cam did he use? Musta been one helluva cam? Did he just 'coincidentally' have a super high speed cam while touristing?

 

Hilarious. The subject of "no planes" is THE most insane thing ever and stating an obvious, totally OBVIOUS fact is now "changing the subject". The impact went inwards. INWARDS. Magic explosives? Nope. Big airplane.

When somebody thinks they "know things" because they went on to Google to find their information, it unfortunately doesn't automatically imbue that person with the capacity to understand what they blunder upon. In this case, comparing a tiny bullet with a big plane.

An object weighing 100 tons travelling at 550mph hits a building and apparently it doesn't convert much of this energy to heat according to this "no planer".

ONE MILLION FRAMES PER SECOND from a gun expert:



THAT is what happens to a bullet. It turns almost to a liquid as it releases nearly all its kinetic energy as heat (the rest as sound).

 

Wow, just wow. If that isn't THE most ignorant thing I've ever seen, it has to be close.

It was a) much, much bigger b) a couple of thousand feet up. Duhhhh.

Maybe the Blue Flame at Bonneville was invisible as it hit 630mph!

 

filmed with a high speed camera!

A 45 acp bullet is pretty big passing diagonally couple feet from my home video sony!

Failure to respond on point again, thats ok, I accept that kind of nonsense as another tacit concession.

some bozo with no background or reference to physics uses a METAPHOR and its posted here as a physics fact and is nothing more than another one of the stupidest claims in the 911 threads so far!

The fragments are slivers of lead, nothing liquified!

liquified airplanes! omfg! what next!

 

Bloviating noise.

Virtually every slo-mo video of a bullet impact, ever produced, says you are full of crap.

The appeal to ignorance, the classic hyper-ventilating retort from a conpiracy theorist. I'm fairly sure nobody has said the plane turned to liquid.

The problem here is that you seem oblivious to what occurred. The bullet in the slo-mo had nowhere to go and released all of its kinetic energy at once, causing the metal to heat up and soften to a liquid. The plane however, exceeded the force required to break through and did not. It did however, significantly soften at the initial point of impact. Moreso on the reinforced concrete of the Pentagon wall. In terms of the temperature generated from kinetic energy release, this would certainly be very much closer to that of the liquid form of the hull, than that of a solid. The idea that this impact would leave visible galling, from images taken from distance is totally absurd.

1. Why don't you tell everybody again about your comparison with the bullet and the plane just above - one of the dumbest things I've seen in the last 10 years here!

2. Why did you run away from telling us how someone uses an old fashioned video camera?

 

My response, ignored of course:

May we have a reply or do you concede this facepalming suggestion!?

"For starters, if he "caught it on videotape" he wasn't looking at the tower, he would have been looking at his tiny 2x1 inch LCD display on his crappy low-resolution video screen. Unreliable witness, now his sole means to verify the plane is reliant on the video. So unconvincing?
What damn camera, where was he when he filmed it, what resolution was it, where IS IT!?"

You arm-waved that away and ignored this:
"Ok then, you tell me how he video tapes something in 2001. Anyone who owned a camera at that time spent virtually the whole time looking at the screen to ensure the camera captured the scene correctly! Even today, people do this same thing with their cell phones!"

 

Why is this person still posting batshit?

 

you said you were OUT why are you still here?
Obsessed with me?

bullshit, I hold them at arms length so I can see the scene and the camera at the same time.

There was no plane in his video, and he stated there was no plane, he was about 270d of the impact.

asked and answered.

the video says the melting claims are complete and total bullshit.
first that is better determined by looking at the shards.

If the lead in fact melted the liquid shards would immediately form a sphere midair.

They do NOT!

NOT one video posted demonstrates molten lead! Disinfo to claim it!



the lead comes off in sheets from compressive force.

You will not see melted lead from any high speed rifles or pistol rounds that I am aware.

I await your pic showing us lead that forms spheres as a result of being molten.

I assume you are at least aware that any liquid midair forms spheres?

I sure the readers know this and are snickering after seeing the insane claim you posted about liquified planes.

Yeh Meigs is a obfuscating retard, why did you post and now defend an insane liquid planes claim?

Ok here you go.

Which will generate greater heat impacting the wtc facade steel columns per cubic millimeter:

1) a 100 ton block of aluminum at 550mph?

or

2) a 5.56 M16 round?

 

What a crock! It comes to something that to support a bad witness from distance you need to make up crap!

WHAT VIDEO? Not seeing something from an obscured view at distance is not proof there wasn't a plane. Duhhh.

Your irrelevant and diversionary guess is still majorly dumb. If you can't see how dumb your original statement was, then that is even worse.

The forum needs more of your observational comedy, so what speed does the plane disappear from view!?


Are these planes all CGI? Some of those jets are passing over just shy of MACH 1 - they are not invisible. Here, this below may help:

Only if poured directly from a molten state. How can you not know this! Once it has impacted into slivers as it PROVABLY DOES, it will cool very rapidly.

THIS folks is all no-planers can do. Even when presented with in-your-face proof of what happens to an object with great kinetic energy, we get this bloviating, huffing and puffing denial.

The metal on the hull reached a temperature closer to a liquid than a solid. If you mischaracterize what I have clearly stated once more, you are doing so deliberately. Even the structural engineer gave this obvious information to you! Are you saying he is lying and you, YOU! know better? Are you? THERE would be the real laughter if that is your claim.

"Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon’s load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass."

ME! "The intense, INTENSE heat generated during the high velocity impact is going to minimalize any impact friction by effectively turning the incoming projectile to an almost liquid state.

 

If you knew much about aviation and aircraft crashes, you would understand that while the lightweight aluminum skin would be consumed or stopped by that crash, the heavier items like landing gear, engines and flap drives might likely retain their momentum to some degree and end up on the ground at some point. We saw an engine on the sidewalk, even though it belonged to a 747 and not a 767, corroborating the idea that the aircraft was a converted (by Dov Zakheim's company) 767 to tanker candidate as suggested by external fairings at wing root shown in photos, and so it makes sense that 10 years later the heavier parts would be found accidentally in a narrow alley at Burlington Coat Factory.

But, apparently you know as much about aircraft construction and dynamics as Joe Biden does.

 

Put up a pic of this flaming stuff, lets see exactly what you are talking about.