RE: No Planes

Discussion in '9/11' started by genericBob, Jun 14, 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. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    in the case of any "news video" one must take care that what is shown in
    the video aligns with the laws of physics.
    Please consider this, if the video is to be accepted as true, the aircraft
    would have had to penetrate the wall without slowing down, or at least
    not slowing down so much as would be visible in the video, I have estimated
    that if the aircraft were indeed penetrating the wall and lost 125 mph in velocity
    this may slip by as imperceivable in the video, with that said, if the aircraft did
    indeed loose 125 mph velocity while penetrating the wall, this would be a
    g force of greater than 10 g's and that would be more than sufficient to break
    the aircraft, only combat aircraft or special stunt aircraft can handle 10 g's,
    its a sure thing that airliners can not. In the video, the aircraft is seen to make
    a smooth entry into the building however, note that in penetrating the wall,
    the nose of the aircraft would break 5 or 6 box columns to penetrate, and then
    the wings get involved and they each have to break at least a dozen more, that
    is per wing, and still there is no breaking up of the alleged aircraft.
    Clearly the "news" is lying to us. I know is comes as a shock to most people,
    after all Walter Cronkite was considered the most trusted man in America.
    what does that say about America .... ( ? )
     
  2. LogicallyYours

    LogicallyYours New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,233
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What complete bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

    "In the case....." The videos are completely align with the laws of physics. Tell me what law of physics to do the break?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk

    Clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about. The one lying is you, by ignorance.
     
  3. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So you think that shredded bits of airliner inside the building
    would contribute to the total KE that would have to propel the
    aircraft into the building. right?
     
  4. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Even shredded, it is the same exact mass.
     
  5. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The jet crashed into a concrete wall is an "apples/oranges" comparison,
    the jet in the test case was lined up perpendicular to the wall and also
    the test was designed to NOT penetrate the wall, in the case of the alleged
    "FLT175" the aircraft penetrated the wall.

    The test bit does show one thing that is relevant and that is
    aircraft crashes are very violent, why is it that in the case of
    "FLT175" the aircraft is seen to as much as melt into the side of the tower?
     
  6. LogicallyYours

    LogicallyYours New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,233
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    WTF?... the jet was close enough to the same angle as flight 175. the laws of physics dont change. You're a posuer...and worse, you're dishonest.

    The test was designed to see the effects of a jet crashing into concrete. No more, no less. Clearly, the wings did NOT buckle as you would have liked the to. You have been debunked.

    This test does show one thing, that is, the claim you're trying to make is moot. Flight 175 "melts" into the tower because much of the side of the building was glass and what wasn't was demolished by the mass and velocity of the plane.
     
  7. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, it is the same mass, but is it connected to the body of the aircraft
    still outside the building and is it contributing to the motion of this alleged aircraft?
     
  8. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It doesn't matter: it is the same mass traveling at the same velocity. It could be the size of grains of sand and the result would be the same.
     
  9. LogicallyYours

    LogicallyYours New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,233
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ...and all down the length of the wing span, the building is giving way to the plane. Did you just expect the plane to crumple up and fall to the ground? How is the eyewitness statements corroborate what all the many videos show?
     
  10. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    When ever did I specify that the wings "buckled" What I said was
    that as a consequence of the design of the wing, that is the swept
    back bit, the wing tips would become disconnected from the aircraft
    before they had a chance to penetrate the wall.

    also note that you say the FLT11 & FLT175 strikes were
    near enough to completely perpendicular so as to not make a difference,
    but in this matter you are speculating, an aircraft undergoing >10 g deceleration,
    and contacting a wall at 11 degrees off perpendicular will have many tons of
    vector forces acting upon it, maybe in your opinion not relevant, but its real
    and its a factor.

    I ask again, where is the physical evidence that proves
    any of the aircraft "FLT11" "FLT175" "FLT77" "FLT93"
    were indeed crashed at the locations where the news reported them crashed?
    Inventory of aircraft bits? or?
     
  11. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We are talking about the mass of the aircraft maintaining sufficient KE
    so as to guarantee its total disappearance inside the WTC tower.
    if the shredded mass contributed to the total KE, exactly how is that possible?
     
  12. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You mean besides the black boxes and DNA of the passengers found at the scene of the crashes or ... ?
     
  13. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Where are the " black boxes" for FLT11 or FLT175?
     
  14. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Next thing you will be asking to see the desks from each floor.
     
  15. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Destroyed in the collapses.
     
  16. LogicallyYours

    LogicallyYours New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,233
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Forgive the term...but, that' what you alluding to...how else would you have described it? Lets say the wing tips did become disconnected, wouldn't they still have hit the building at almost 500mph so, the point your trying to make, is not relavant. Second, the wingtips would still be connected on the backside. It conforms with what the video shows.

    So what? Turns out its not relevant because the video(s) clearly show it made no difference. Not to mention, you reall have no math that shows the plane were exactly perpendicular...AND even is you did, it wouldn't make any difference.

    Are you really that intellectually dishonest?

    Eyewitnesses on the ground, in the building, across the river, ATC in New Jersey
    Radar that tracke the entire flight path
    Calls from the planes
    Photos from witnesses taken from various location in NYC and NJ
    Plane parts whch have been identified as coming from the planes
    Body parts falling to the ground

    You really can't compare your nutter ideas to the overwhelming mountain of reality you find yourself facing.
     
  17. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's why I'm done with bob,he keeps asking the same questions expecting an answer he'll like..
     
  18. Stndown

    Stndown Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    889
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Do they even exist?
     
  19. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Of course they did. All commercial jets come equipped with them.
     
  20. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Note that these recorders are made to withstand a very serious crash,
    and also note that there were firearms recovered from the rubble,
    indicating that the destruction was not so complete as to destroy a
    sturdy metal object such as a firearm. The fact that there wasn't any
    flight recorders recovered from Ground Zero speaks volumes.
     
  21. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Only to the hypnotized.
     
  22. Stndown

    Stndown Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    889
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just another coincidence. Whoops? Maybe they went bye bye with those 83 Pentagon camera photos?
     
  23. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Playing stupid again? You were provided with a link to those 85 videos yesterday.

    Whoops - forgot about your paid agenda. Carry on with the disinfo, Boss.
     
  24. LogicallyYours

    LogicallyYours New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,233
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think your comment is extremely ignorant and disingenuous. These black boxes would have had to survive the plane crash and explosion, the resulting fire, the collapse of 100 stories of building and materials and subsequent fires (if any).

    And you think its odd they didnt survive?
     
  25. EggKiller

    EggKiller Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2012
    Messages:
    6,650
    Likes Received:
    483
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Just the opposite. Swing a stick at a tree. The tree acts as the fulcrum and also the point it breaks. The tip of the broken stick then flys forward at a speed greater than the original impact.
     

Share This Page