Merged 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
And so, bill smith simply refuses to address what is wrong with the military correcting bloggers error regarding them. Seems to like to talk about anything else. Oh, well.
 
tfk said:
I explained this to bill over a year ago.

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post6900
Showing him this example of a "50 ton hydraulic press".
http://www.mile-x.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=415
800 pounds, boxed for shipping.

It doesn't matter. Nothing ever gets removed from his "Bucket o' Nonsense". It just goes back in the bucket and pulled out again at a later date.

tk
Click to expand...

bill smith said:
Really ? Tell me the post number then ? I didn't think I'd ever posted on the 50-ton press on topix. I certainly never realised that it was in fact a 200-pound machine because the guys here just helped me to realise that. Which post number please ?
Click to expand...

GlennB said:
There's a clue in the link tfk gave

I must admit, Bill, you are quite funny. But you're not going to make a living as a stand-up comedian.
Click to expand...

bill smith said:
Well we'll see when Teddy comes back with the post number. I've never had a groupie quite like him before. He spends more time trying (and failing) to sabotage me than he does on anything else I think.
Click to expand...

bill smith said:
Come on Teddy....how long does it take ?....we can't wait forever......
Click to expand...

Even with prompts, you are unable to find the link in the original post. Amazingly oblivious ...

Re:
"... groupie ..."
"... trying (and failing) to sabotage me ..."

Yeah, I will whole-heatedly accept these statements to be precisely as accurate as 99% of your conclusions.

Regarding: your recycling of discredited ideas...

Found any "silent explosives" yet?
Got any proof of video fakery yet?
Found your proof that the plane should have bounced off the side of the towers yet?
 
Did you know....

Did you know that the plane that hit WTC1 weighed one-half of one-tenth of one percent the weight of the building ? This weight was spead out over the width of the plane which was 125 feet or so. Roughly one ton per linear foot if evenly divided. Still the plane bent the building back 27 inches which was approaching half the maximun distance (65'') that the buiding was designed to bend in the highest of winds.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Did you know that the plane that hit WTC1 weighed one-half of one-tenth of one percent the weight of the building ? This weight was spead out over the width of the plane which was 125 feet or so. Roughly one ton per linear foot if evenly divided. Still the plane bent the building back 27 inches which was approaching half the maximun distance (65'') that the buiding was designed to bend in the highest of winds.
Click to expand...

Do you have a point?
 
apathoid said:
Obviously this means a plane didn't hit the tower, ergo...it was a giant reptoid battle cruiser cloaked as a 767.
Click to expand...

I don't believe we they would've wasted one of the fleet battle cruisers on such a puny building. IIRC in yet another act of foreknowledge, in honor of 9/11 truth they sent a frigate.
 
bill smith said:
Did you know that the plane that hit WTC1 weighed one-half of one-tenth of one percent the weight of the building ? This weight was spead out over the width of the plane which was 125 feet or so. Roughly one ton per linear foot if evenly divided. Still the plane bent the building back 27 inches which was approaching half the maximun distance (65'') that the buiding was designed to bend in the highest of winds.
Click to expand...

Bill, have you tried dividing the velocity of the plane by the velocity of the building at the moment of impact?

Dave
 
Can you pretend...

bill smith said:
Did you know that the plane that hit WTC1 weighed one-half of one-tenth of one percent the weight of the building ? This weight was spead out over the width of the plane which was 125 feet or so. Roughly one ton per linear foot if evenly divided. Still the plane bent the building back 27 inches which was approaching half the maximun distance (65'') that the buiding was designed to bend in the highest of winds.
Click to expand...
Can you pretend that the nonsense you spout has more value than one-half of one-tenth of one percent of a dead dingo fart? Your fantasy is spread out over the length of your posting history which is 1,166 posts or so. Roughly one lie per exponential delusion if oddly divided. Still your woo bends your credibility back full circle which was approaching half the minimum intelligence (65 points) that the forum software can parse in the deepest depths of insanity.
 
Dave Rogers said:
bill smith said:
Did you know that the plane that hit WTC1 weighed one-half of one-tenth of one percent the weight of the building ? This weight was spead out over the width of the plane which was 125 feet or so. Roughly one ton per linear foot if evenly divided. Still the plane bent the building back 27 inches which was approaching half the maximun distance (65'') that the buiding was designed to bend in the highest of winds.
Click to expand...
Bill, have you tried dividing the velocity of the plane by the velocity of the building at the moment of impact?

Dave
Click to expand...

Nominated :)
 
Dave Rogers said:
Bill, have you tried dividing the velocity of the plane by the velocity of the building at the moment of impact?

Dave
Click to expand...
Suppose the plane was stationary in the sky and you flew the building at it at neaarly 600mph ? Are the forces the same at impact and would the plane still go through the outer columns,and hit the core ? How would the force that caused the building to bend be represented in this case ? What would we see ?
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
My good bud, Tony Szamboti posted this little gem over on another board.

http://www.gulli.com/news/world-trade-center-destruction-2009-05-24/

Geez...my high school-level of chemistry is offended by the level of stupid in this document. Guaranteed you will see this quoted by truthers. Nano thermite more powerful and cheaper to produce than "regular" explosives...really? He tells us nano thermite is created molecule by molecule, and then claims its cheaper to produce. Really? (insert laughing dog)

He also claims to be the most knowledgeable on the subject at his university...dang...that must be one suck-ass university...remind me not to send my kids there.
 
Wait... Did bill smith try to tell us how much energy was involved in the impact, then spread it over the width of the plane to make it sound suspicious that the tower reacted to the impact as much as it did?

Talk about unnecessary.

With the direction he was going, I would have expected him to make the no-planer argument that the plane shouldn't have even penetrated the tower, but no... he went even stupider than that.

bill smith, it doesn't matter how much the energy was spread out, because it was all transferred to the tower.

Macgyver1968 said:
My good bud, Tony Szamboti posted this little gem over on another board.

http://www.gulli.com/news/world-trade-center-destruction-2009-05-24/

Geez...my high school-level of chemistry is offended by the level of stupid in this document. Guaranteed you will see this quoted by truthers. Nano thermite more powerful and cheaper to produce than "regular" explosives...really? He tells us nano thermite is created molecule by molecule, and then claims its cheaper to produce. Really? (insert laughing dog).
Click to expand...
gulli.com: So it is much smaller and therefore has a bigger surface which makes it react much quicker and more energetic?
Click to expand...


What... the... ****...
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
What... the... ****...
Click to expand...

Looks to me like he would be talking about surface area, which would be technically correct. It does speed up reactions with more of the substance being used at any given time, however this also means the available fuel is consumed more rapidly, and a layer the thickness of paint would still fail to do anything to 1/4" of steel, let alone 4" at the base of the towers
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Did you know that the plane that hit WTC1 weighed one-half of one-tenth of one percent the weight of the building ? This weight was spead out over the width of the plane which was 125 feet or so. Roughly one ton per linear foot if evenly divided. Still the plane bent the building back 27 inches which was approaching half the maximun distance (65'') that the buiding was designed to bend in the highest of winds.
Click to expand...

27 inches? get real, according to frank de martini, WTC construction manager who was just below the impact of flight 11, it was more like 12 - 20 feet (144 - 240 inches) source - 'inside the twin towers'.
makes you wonder what would have happened if the bolts didn't break keeping the prefab column sections in place.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom