• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Message from a Truther

bill smith said:
I would be happy to distance myself from the no-planers when you give me a reasonable answer to post #81 on this page.
Click to expand...

What you wrote in post #81 is mindless gibberish. If you knew anything at all about basic physics, you'd be embarrassed.

THE PLANE DID NOT HIT THE ENTIRE BUILDING.
 
bill smith said:
Don't be frightened Twinstead, There still may be some explanation for how the plane went thrugh all that steel without losing any speed.
Click to expand...


Yes, Bill, there certainly is a reason why absolutely no scientists, engineers, avionics techs, or high school physics teachers anywhere in the world have the slightest doubt about the way the planes entered the buildings. There is certainly a reason why no-planes idiocy is the exclusive province of uneducated fools infesting the net.

The explanation you dishonestly pretend to seek was provided by Ryan Mackey. When will you watch it?
 
FineWine said:
What you wrote in post #81 is mindless gibberish. If you knew anything at all about basic physics, you'd be embarrassed.

THE PLANE DID NOT HIT THE ENTIRE BUILDING.
Click to expand...

What? are you trying to tell me that if the plane had gone into the 40th floor of a 50 floor building it wouldn't have done twice the amount of damage to the structure? [/truther]
 
bill smith said:
Exactly what I say. The plane passed through that massive steel barrier without any of the flimsy panels coming loose and fluttering down on the outside and it lost zero velocity due to the impact. In fact in th case of WTC1 the 155-foot long aircraft went hrough the perimeter columns and hit the core about 60 feet in. So about 100 feet of he fuselage should have been sticking out and momentarily showing that tremendous final shattering blow against he core columns. But guess what ?....hey, it did not allow a few measly core columns to slow it down either and went in without any hesitation or jolt at all.
Click to expand...


No, Bill, the deranged Nazi Killclown is wrong, and all the world's physicists and aeronautical engineers are right. You have been caught lying, as usual, about your repeated false claims of no deceleration. The deceleration has been proved by, among others, Frank Greening. Not that you care.
 
Last edited:
NobbyNobbs said:
Are you suggesting that the reality of the situation should be akin to Wile E. Coyote slamming into the face of a cliff and sliding down?



And a 200 grain .45 caliber bullet is .0184% of my body weight, but I have no doubt about its ability to penetrate my skin without an apprpeciable loss of speed.. Your point?
Click to expand...


Everything you say is completely correct, but do you have any idea of how many times Bill's latest idiocy has been shot down on this forum?
 
bill smith said:
What if it's not ? Will you revise your view on 9/11 ? It is that significant after all.
Click to expand...


No, Bill, the stupid lie you're desperately trying to recycle will never invalidate the tens of thousands of eyewitnesses to the crash of U175.
 
bill smith said:
Can you explain what he meant FineWine ?
Click to expand...

Yes, he was mocking the ignorant morons who can't grasp the idea that the plane hit specific columns and windows. If a Boeing 767 hits a two-story wood house, it will most certainly do a helluva lot more damage than if it hits a 110-story skyscraper. We get that part, Bill. The particular 767s we're talking about severed perimeter columns because they were moving very fast. The cowardly fraud Morgan Reynolds went into hiding after Mackey's lecture for a good reason.
 
bill smith said:
Can you explain what he meant FineWine ?
Click to expand...

You can't understand what Mackey said. You can't understand what Greening said. Yet, you want to pretend that you're "debating" whether or not a 100-ton projectile moving 500 mph can cut steel columns. You've enlisted the most utterly deranged imbeciles on the net as your authorities. Okay, Bill, you've humiliated yourself again. Now, how does this advance your insane cause?

Remember what I wrote: after you've sent every Jew to concentration camps, airliners moving at 500 mph will still slice through steel columns like a hot knife through soft butter.
 
bill smith said:
I didn''t see any eplanation worth listening to Finewine. Do you want to cut and paste Greenning's strongest point here ? If you don't we will understand.
Click to expand...



No, Bill, you really didn't see any explanation worth listening to. You are moving past the witless buffoon stage and entering something far more ominous:

(From one of Greening's posts in the link provided):

Anyway, I decided to take a closer look at this question. After a lot of digging I found Omika's paper and saw his plots (Figures 4 and 15) showing measured velocity reductions of Flight 175 up to 100 m/s. I also noticed that Omika's velocity vs. time plot has SIX points after the t = 0 point, and up to the t = 0.20 second point. This shows that the video Omika used was shot at 33 frames per second, although I thank those posters who talked about 60 f/s videos - nevertheless, most still-frame sequences of the impact have only SIX frames. (Oh, and by the way, on the question of video resolution, may I suggest folks look at the images from Scott Myers' video as shown on pape 98 of NIST NCSTAR 1-5A. Here I would say that the photographic resolution is about 1 meter !)

I have also attempted my own (crude!) analysis of some impact videos, and like Omika, I see a measurable velocity reduction in the last 2 or 3 frames.

This tells me that Reynold's argument is based on a false premiss. The WTC 2 impact videos do actually show some degree of slowing of Flight 175 and therefore show a REAL aircraft striking a REAL building... That is, they are NOT FAKED!

Furthemore, Newton's Laws are still obviously in control of the universe and Dr. Reynold's needs to find a new rationale for his no-plane thesis....
 
bill smith said:
Are we back to the aluminium bulldozer theory again ? The bread cutting the knife and so on ?
Click to expand...

so then bill you didn't even bother to watch any of the videos I posted, and are now just ignoring it.

it is funny.

We have covered this plane cut steel crap. I just showed you it is crap.

nice dodge and an ignore.
what is the score from the judges? 9, 9, 9.5, 8, oh and a 4 from the east german judge.

if you try harder you can try to hand wave it away and ignore it.
 
bill smith said:
What if it's not ? Will you revise your view on 9/11 ? It is that significant after all.
Click to expand...

It's bullcrap in this universe bill. Maybe in another universe, where the laws of physics are reversed (see appropriate Red Dwarf episode) the jet didn't slow down - hell, maybe it even accelerated!

But not in this universe.

Newsflash: bill's delusions do not alter reality itself. Unless bill is actually God and his thoughts alter reality. I think we can safely eliminate that last possibility...:relieved:
 
FineWine said:
No, Bill, you really didn't see any explanation worth listening to. You are moving past the witless buffoon stage and entering something far more ominous:

(From one of Greening's posts in the link provided):

Anyway, I decided to take a closer look at this question. After a lot of digging I found Omika's paper and saw his plots (Figures 4 and 15) showing measured velocity reductions of Flight 175 up to 100 m/s. I also noticed that Omika's velocity vs. time plot has SIX points after the t = 0 point, and up to the t = 0.20 second point. This shows that the video Omika used was shot at 33 frames per second, although I thank those posters who talked about 60 f/s videos - nevertheless, most still-frame sequences of the impact have only SIX frames. (Oh, and by the way, on the question of video resolution, may I suggest folks look at the images from Scott Myers' video as shown on pape 98 of NIST NCSTAR 1-5A. Here I would say that the photographic resolution is about 1 meter !)

I have also attempted my own (crude!) analysis of some impact videos, and like Omika, I see a measurable velocity reduction in the last 2 or 3 frames.

This tells me that Reynold's argument is based on a false premiss. The WTC 2 impact videos do actually show some degree of slowing of Flight 175 and therefore show a REAL aircraft striking a REAL building... That is, they are NOT FAKED!

Furthemore, Newton's Laws are still obviously in control of the universe and Dr. Reynold's needs to find a new rationale for his no-plane thesis....
Click to expand...


and that's the best he's got ? My confidence in this is rising steadily.
 
TruthersLie said:
so then bill you didn't even bother to watch any of the videos I posted, and are now just ignoring it.

it is funny.

We have covered this plane cut steel crap. I just showed you it is crap.

nice dodge and an ignore.
what is the score from the judges? 9, 9, 9.5, 8, oh and a 4 from the east german judge.

if you try harder you can try to hand wave it away and ignore it.
Click to expand...

Bye. Have a nice life.
 
bill, are you actually this deluded or are you just pretending to be? It's impossible to tell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom