Merged National Geographic Special - "9/11 Science and Conspiracy" Debunks Thermite Myth

Hey sorry if this has already been discussed in this thread:

I am perfectly fine with and understand the reason why they only launched a cylinder into the scaled down "Pentagon" wall and can even explain it.

But I can imagine Truthers making a big deal about how they didn't have wings on the cylinder, even I explain the reasoning that NG gave. I was wondering if anyone can possibly go into more info on why not modeling the wings was justified.

Also, why didn't they just put wings on the cylinder anyways?
 
I think it has something to do with the fact that they would have had to make it too big to even make the wings stay on the thing. I could be wrong though, and I am only speculating.
 
knife fight colobus said:
Hey sorry if this has already been discussed in this thread:

I am perfectly fine with and understand the reason why they only launched a cylinder into the scaled down "Pentagon" wall and can even explain it.

But I can imagine Truthers making a big deal about how they didn't have wings on the cylinder, even I explain the reasoning that NG gave. I was wondering if anyone can possibly go into more info on why not modeling the wings was justified.

Also, why didn't they just put wings on the cylinder anyways?
Click to expand...

When you think of a real plane, is there something else on the wings that might affect the results of impact?
 
knife fight colobus said:
Hey sorry if this has already been discussed in this thread:

I am perfectly fine with and understand the reason why they only launched a cylinder into the scaled down "Pentagon" wall and can even explain it.

But I can imagine Truthers making a big deal about how they didn't have wings on the cylinder, even I explain the reasoning that NG gave. I was wondering if anyone can possibly go into more info on why not modeling the wings was justified.

Also, why didn't they just put wings on the cylinder anyways?
Click to expand...

Even if investigators built a full-scale model of the Pentagon using authentic materials, and crashed an actual airliner into it, truthers would dismiss the experiment as not being an exact duplicate of the actual events.

I can promise you that.
 
aggle-rithm said:
Even if investigators built a full-scale model of the Pentagon using authentic materials, and crashed an actual airliner into it, truthers would dismiss the experiment as not being an exact duplicate of the actual events.

I can promise you that.
Click to expand...
Yep, they'd claim it hit an inch or 2 in the wrong spot, at an inexact angle, with the wrong wing tilt.
 
They would still claim that it was faked, even if the sat on the vertical tail fin.

Idiots, the whole lot of em.
 
RedIbis said:
Heh? I'm pointing out why the cylinder experiment has no relevance to what took place at the Pentagon since it wasn't just the wings they omitted.
Click to expand...

And there's another classic truther technique for rejecting evidence. If there's the slightest difference between the experimental setup and the actual events, then the experiment has "no relevance", rather than being a useful indicator of a class of occurrences.

Unless, of course, it involves cardboard boxes, which, as every truther knows, can be used to provide a 100% accurate and relevant simulation of absolutely anything.

Dave
 
RedIbis said:
When you think of a real plane, is there something else on the wings that might affect the results of impact?
Click to expand...
This reply is exactly why I consider you anti-intellectual, disingenuous trolling joke. Stop dicking around, stop your childish attempts at being coy. Say what's on your mind, articulate your thoughts in detail.

You think the test was faulty. Explain why, in detail. Not just because 'x' is different. Explain specifically how the difference would have impacted the results.
 
RedIbis said:
At least someone was able to figure it out. So I suppose the engines weren't necessary in the "experiment"?
Click to expand...

It just shows that you don't understand the experiment.

The twoofs love to say that the "soft aluminum nose cone" wouldn't have penetrated as far as it did.

what do engines have to do with that? Oh nothing. But look a simple test with an aluminum cylinder... and it goes right through the rings. wowsers...

It is called doing the basic experiment.
 
I'm sure the experiment didn't have any airline colors painted on it. I CLAIM FOUL!
 
TruthersLie said:
It just shows that you don't understand the experiment.

The twoofs love to say that the "soft aluminum nose cone" wouldn't have penetrated as far as it did.

what do engines have to do with that? Oh nothing. But look a simple test with an aluminum cylinder... and it goes right through the rings. wowsers...

It is called doing the basic experiment.
Click to expand...

So you think it was the nose cone which caused the exit hole?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom