Discussion in '9/11' started by Gamolon, Apr 30, 2014.
Friends and family in the CD business, witnessing actual CD explosions.
and you have had an audio spectrum analyzer handy
when you witness these CD events?
Certainly. Why wouldn't we?
OK, I'll byte
what where you using said instrument for?
To analyze the audio spectrum of the cutter charges, of course.
Here is what CD sounds like.
You are making a very good point here, one that all debunkers here are quietly dodging.
You have got to be kidding me!
How can either of you two think that hitting a nail with a hammer is even REMOTELY similar to a plane crashing into a tower? Do you even understand the BASIC differences of these two scenarios? Obviously not.
The plane was not STATIONARY and was not partly EMBEDDED into the building like a nail in a board. There was no EXTERNAL force that IMPACTED the the back of the plane like a hammer hitting a nail. If I shot a nail out of a nail gun into a board, would it bend the nail?
Just incredible! It's statements like these that make you people look like fools.
I posted FEAs in another thread showing it was possible. Where are your FEAs showing it was not? 12+ years of NOTHING. Why haven't all the truther engineers come forth with something showing it's not possible in this time? Are they all incompetent?
Go ahead. Show us all that the FEAs are wrong. You can't. That's why none of you have provided any evidence to the contrary.
To take your nail-gun analogy, what if the nail was shot so as to strike the board at an angle?
If you have access to tools, I suggest you try it.
The nail sticks in at an angle. Are you suggesting that the nail will bend?
The fact that you and Vlad think that hitting a nail with a hammer and a plane crashing into a tower facade are even remotely similar is hysterical. Proof that neither of you have any clue.
If at an angle similar to that of UA 175 into the South Tower, of course not. It would bounce off all together.
Where's your evidence that proves this? Math? Calculations? How about a video showing you shooting a nail gun at a piece of wood?
That's just my quick opinion. Of course there are many factors that play a role like material, gun power etc. But nevertheless I just expressed myself in support of n0spam's opinion that given the angle of UA 175, I would expect at least some of the energy to be dissipated sideways - something that didn't happen. All the plane magically entered the building without any pieces falling out afterwards and without any wreckage visible in the holes.
Pieces were found in the street.
Where? Right next to the red bandana?
No, on the streets of NYC nearby the WTC.
Nice try at derailing, Boss. Keep up the ridicule and avoid the pesky evidence against your crazy 'no planes' theory.
For a bunch of people accusing many of us of "fearing debate", they're shy about both the lack of evidence for so called "no planes" and the history behind related nutty theories.
Based on what Vlad? Show me why you think this should have happened.
You and others have been provided with FEAs for both towers and not one of you can provide me with mathematical reasons as to why they are wrong or why you think something else should have happened.
Were are the truther FEAs showing what YOU believe to be what SHOULD have happened? Do you have something to provide us from the 12+ years of truth seeking you folks are proclaiming to ave done?
Something else could have happened indeed...
An experimental crash where an airliner hits a hard object (the ground) at a descent speed higher than is recommended for landings. The back wheels and the front one touch the ground at the same time. Because it is moving in the direction of the front one, the front takes all the energy as you can see and dissipates it, so the back doesn't receive any energy, even though it 'crashes' the ground:
If we consider your theory, it would mean that this plane should receive the energy uniformly and break everywhere across its entire surface, not just at the front, just because both the front and the back wheels touched the ground at the same time. The plane 'crashed' into the ground. This demonstrates that perpendicularity of motion plays a role when it comes to energy.
The WTC impacts were at a much higher speed, but again only the portion that touched first in the direction of motion generated the true energy. The angle was much sharper than in my example but again, at least some parts at the back must have had too much of their energy stolen by the frontal parts in order to completely go inside like they did, even more decisively at that high speed than in my low speed example.
No,It would NOT.
Right next to the red bandana. Yes, I thought so.
More hallucinations from the truthers? Yes, it seems so.
an argument that
goes into an infinite loop of.
..................... etc ad infinitum ad nausum!
Don't forget, forum rules apply here as well. Be respectful, even if you disagree
Separate names with a comma.