Split Thread 'Nose-out' footage

[DGM]

It's like arguing with kids.

Naaaaahaaaa!!!!!!!!!





When do you think they'll figure out we're just here to mock them for our own personal enjoyment?

 

[twinstead]

When do you think they'll figure out we're just here to mock them for our own personal enjoyment?

Never, I hope. They might take their toys and go home.

 

[bill smith]

If no-planers want an explanation to why a large mass traveling at high speeds is able to penetrate a large building, why don't they begin by picking up an elementary school physics text book? That seems to be the sole basis for their problems; of course if they can't accept the physics explained to them by someone I don't know what gives me any kind of optimism they'll do any better by reading it themselves...

This 'large mass' of 150 tons has to be seen relatively. It actually represented one three-hundreth of one percent the weight of the building- a bit like a mosquito. Even at that, this 150 tons was spread thinly over a very large area with the aluminium being a mere few millimeters thick. (25 millimeters to the inch) he two engines weighed six tons each and were the hardest elements along with the landing gear. These however cannot explain how a line of 33 well braced steel box columns were severed as if they were butter.
http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/5553/spellcuom2.gif

 

[DGM]

This 'large mass' of 150 tons has to be seen relatively. It actually represented one three-hundreth of one percent the weight of the building- a bit like a mosquito. Even at that, this 150 tons was spread thinly over a very large area with the aluminium being a mere few millimeters thick. (25 millimeters to the inch) he two engines weighed six tons each and were the hardest elements along with the landing gear. These however cannot explain how a line of 33 well braced steel box columns were severed as if they were butter.
http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/5553/spellcuom2.gif

Bill:
Seriously, Were the holes faked? If so, How?

 

[bill smith]

Bill:
Seriously, Were the holes faked? If so, How?

You have seen enough evidence to know how it looks. Do you still say that no further investigation is required ? Do you still say that we have absolutely no grounds to suspect no-planes ? Please consider your answer.

 

[DGM]

You have seen enough evidence to know how it looks. Do you still say that no further investigation is required ? Do you still say that we have absolutely no grounds to suspect no-planes ? Please consider your answer.

Yes I do consider it with out grounds.

A good friend of mine shot a video from battery park of 175 hitting the south tower (it's never been on youtube). His wife was killed (she was in the south tower, also my friend).

For what you want me to believe to be true, I would have to believe my friend lied to me and how my friend (his wife) died is all some sort of illusion.

Reality sucks for the noplaners.

 

[bill smith]

On Hardfire the model wasn't just presented as an illustration.

Ron Wieck: "In other words, the effect that we see, that the plane simply sliced through the building, is really the only thing we could expect to see? It can't be otherwise?"

Ryan Mackey: "Right. That is what the model predicts."


For a high-pressure water jet to cut a piece of steel, you have to point the water jet at the piece of steel before any cutting can start.




On page 88, NIST show a diagram comparing the fuel load of the two planes. Flight 175 has all its fuel in the inboard tank, while flight 11 also has a small amount in the outboard tank. Even the fuel in flight 11 poses huge problems for the slug of fuel model. I can't find figures for the height of the fuel tanks in NCSTAR 1-2B, but Mackey uses 16". If that's the height of a full tank at the half way mark, then he's grossly overestimating the momentum of any fuel outboard of rib 18.

That particular show turned my stomach. Is that the one where Ron said the plane weighed 'hundreds of thousands of tons' ? I think I know that that was a slip of the tongue but....with these guys ? Didn't he also give the impression of a building that was mostly glass ? Perhaps technically true but the 38% (?) of steel was the more technically important and significant observation to pass on to the viewers.

'' Ron Wieck: "In other words, the effect that we see, that the plane simply sliced through the building, is really the only thing we could expect to see? It can't be otherwise?"

Ryan Mackey: "Right. That is what the model predicts."

 

[beachnut]

This 'large mass' of 150 tons has to be seen relatively. It actually represented one three-hundreth of one percent the weight of the building- a bit like a mosquito. Even at that, this 150 tons was spread thinly over a very large area with the aluminium being a mere few millimeters thick. (25 millimeters to the inch) he two engines weighed six tons each and were the hardest elements along with the landing gear. These however cannot explain how a line of 33 well braced steel box columns were severed as if they were butter.
http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/5553/spellcuom2.gif

No lie is too big or stupid for you to repeat and spread. As you apologize weakly for the murdering terrorists. Your lack of knowledge in physics and engineering is not an excuse for telling massive lies. Why do make up pathetically stupid ideas and post them; no one can be this bad?

Your posts get more delusional as you go; are your antidepressants making your sleep less? Why are you spewing open loop stupid ideas on 911. Medication, or inability to think rationally? This is a skeptic forum, you fall for each moronic idea on 911 without thinking.

Too bad you don't sign up here to help your movement win;;; http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?act=Reg&CODE=00

If you could do physics you would find the impact of Flight 175 was 4,380,000,000 joules which is why 175 easily entered the WTC. If you could physics you would not be posting pathetically stupid ideas based on nothing but your delusional opinions.

With no skills to do the physics you are stuck posting cretinous poppycock continuously without thinking twice.

BTW, the WTC was designed to resist an aircraft impact with 386,000,000 joules. Got math?

 

[bill smith]

Yes I do consider it with out grounds.

A good friend of mine shot a video from battery park of 175 hitting the south tower (it's never been on youtube). His wife was killed (she was in the south tower, also my friend).

For what you want me to believe to be true, I would have to believe my friend lied to me and how my friend (his wife) died is all some sort of illusion.

Reality sucks for the noplaners.

There seem to be a plethora of people coming forward at he moment on the jref and saying they saw the planes and/or lost friends or family in the events . Perhaps you haven't noticed ? As usual I regret any losses that people may have really incurred but I do not automatically take it as gospel.This is an anonymous forum after all,

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I don't know about no-planers and their moronic analogies but I don't count 80 ft wide holes in a skyscraper as a mosquito bite. More like the human body's equivalent of a disembowelment.

 

[beachnut]

There seem to be a plethora of people coming forward at he moment on the jref and saying they saw the planes and/or lost friends or family in the events . Perhaps you haven't noticed ? As usual I regret any losses that people may have really incurred but I do not automatically take it as gospel.This is an anonymous forum after all,

You don't regret anything or you would not disgrace those dead with the biggest moronic lies you can make up with post after post of delusional claptrap.

The only thing you can do is post lies; therefore you could care less for the murder of people by 19 terrorists on 911, you prefer to make up junk with no evidence, and no base in reality. You are not anonymous, your IP address follows you around the INTERNET and all you write, all I write is traceable to you and I, to our very doorstep; you are as anonymous as Tiger Woods mistresses. You fail to think past your failed moronic ideas on 911.

Your support of no plane and the nose-out scam has failed as the only evidence you provide is talk of nut case fantasies and idiotic statements that only make sense to you.

 

[bill smith]

You don't regret anything or you would not disgrace those dead with the biggest moronic lies you can make up with post after post of delusional claptrap.

The only thing you can do is post lies; therefore you could care less for the murder of people by 19 terrorists on 911, you prefer to make up junk with no evidence, and no base in reality. You are not anonymous, your IP address follows you around the INTERNET and all you write, all I write is traceable to you and I, to our very doorstep; you are as anonymous as Tiger Woods mistresses. You fail to think past your failed moronic ideas on 911.

Your support of no plane and the nose-out scam has failed as the only evidence you provide is talk of nut case fantasies and idiotic statements that only make sense to you.

Well if you really think there is nothing to it then why concern yourself ? I will try to convince people using whatever evidence I can muster. If it's rubbish they will reject t as you have. If not they will join my way of thinking. May the Truth win out.

 

[DGM]

There seem to be a plethora of people coming forward at he moment on the jref and saying they saw the planes and/or lost friends or family in the events . Perhaps you haven't noticed ? As usual I regret any losses that people may have really incurred but I do not automatically take it as gospel.This is an anonymous forum after all,

Believe me or not, frankly I don't care. The fact of the matter is people saw the planes and you can't refute that.

 

[TruthersLie]

Simple. The car and the steel plate collided. The problem with the slug of fuel model is that some columns broke even though they weren't hit by any fuel at all.

But where did the fuel come from to put pressure on the columns that were hit by the section of wing outboard of rib 18?

I love how you MISS THE POINT OF THE VIDEO completely. Absolutely and utterly.

What was that fuel slug inside of? How fast was it travelling? Oh it was inside of a FREAKING HUGE ****ING BIG JET moving at 500 mph.

Will aluminum bend steel at 500 mph? Yes or no? Would aluminum break connections between steel facings on a building at 500 mph? Well if there is 100 TONS of it, yes.

so your lack of understanding of how a simplified model works is rather telling. It ranks up there with your lack of understanding of CGI, or of how video works. Reading for comprehension fails you YET AGAIN.

The video about the fuel slug is pointing out that EVEN IF IT WAS ONLY the fuel, it would have broken the connections and is very close to what NIST shows in much greater detail.

That is why you use a model. (look up episode 1 and 3 of the ryan mackey hardfire debates). The model doesn't have to EXACTLY match what you see in reality, it just has to be close enough.

You really may want to try to finish high school, or take a basic science class... research methods would do you wonders.

 

[TruthersLie]

Simple. The car and the steel plate collided. The problem with the slug of fuel model is that some columns broke even though they weren't hit by any fuel at all.

But how is that possible.
The steel plate was TALLER than the car. How could it be possible for an aluminum car that is only 3/4 the height manage to bend that steel plate in half?

Personal incredulity and ignorance do not explain it... oopsie...

so mythbusters is showing that physics can't happen... but it does... wow.

aluminum impacting steel at 500 mph causes the steel to bend in half... now magnify that by 100 TONS at that speed. Thank you for failing (yet again)

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I got why the No-Planes Truthers didn't see any planes on 9/11:

They have 2 glass eyes!

 

[bardamu]

That particular show turned my stomach. Is that the one where Ron said the plane weighed 'hundreds of thousands of tons' ? I think I know that that was a slip of the tongue but....with these guys ? Didn't he also give the impression of a building that was mostly glass ? Perhaps technically true but the 38% (?) of steel was the more technically important and significant observation to pass on to the viewers.

''Ron Wieck: "In other words, the effect that we see, that the plane simply sliced through the building, is really the only thing we could expect to see? It can't be otherwise?"

Ryan Mackey: "Right. That is what the model predicts."

Ron said it was a "mostly glass facade", and Mackey answered: "Right". It's not even technically true. The surface area was 58% steel.

In his introduction, Ron said "we're going to stay away from the politics and we're going to focus entirely on the science". Not long after that, he pointed out that a well-known 9/11 truther is also a "holocaust denier".

Ron's speciality is red herrings. He always devotes part of the show to asking idiotic questions like: "If Bush planned 9/11, why didn't he plant WMD in Iraq?"

 

[beachnut]

Well if you really think there is nothing to it then why concern yourself ? I will try to convince people using whatever evidence I can muster. If it's rubbish they will reject t as you have. If not they will join my way of thinking. May the Truth win out.

I hate to see lies posted due to ignorance. You have no conscience as you spew lies.

The truth won 8 years ago, your ideas all failed before you post them; wrong for 8 years. You lost before you started posting lies and delusions. You spew lies non-stop. I was trying to wake you up from the delusional stupor of posting idiotic lies and failed idea. I failed; you continue posting the dumbest ideas on 911. The only objects which can put up with your failed ideas...

The rocks have more substance pertaining to 911 than you. A pile of rocks have more evidence on 911 than you.

I use your posts as evidence of pure hate of the people murdered on 911 as terrorist laugh at your stupid ideas and lies. They take credit for their actions and you fail at apologizing for murderers. You have a perfect recored of posting rubbish and the support for the nose-out lies of no planes is icing on your supreme expertise at posting delusional lies.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

"There are no stupid questions, just stupid people."

Wish I knew who said that! But anyways, Truthers do ask questions, which are constantly answered repeatedly. It's just that the Truthers are too stupid to accept that there was no "Inside Job".

 

[bardamu]

I love how you MISS THE POINT OF THE VIDEO completely. Absolutely and utterly.

What was that fuel slug inside of? How fast was it travelling? Oh it was inside of a FREAKING HUGE ****ING BIG JET moving at 500 mph.

Will aluminum bend steel at 500 mph? Yes or no? Would aluminum break connections between steel facings on a building at 500 mph? Well if there is 100 TONS of it, yes.

so your lack of understanding of how a simplified model works is rather telling. It ranks up there with your lack of understanding of CGI, or of how video works. Reading for comprehension fails you YET AGAIN.

According to R Mackey and R Wieck, the point of that part of the show was to prove that the damage to the towers could have been made by the fuel alone, and therefore by a plane that was carrying the fuel. The model failed and now a different model is needed to show that an aluminium plane could cause the damage.

The video about the fuel slug is pointing out that EVEN IF IT WAS ONLY the fuel, it would have broken the connections and is very close to what NIST shows in much greater detail.

The video is claiming that the fuel could break the columns, not break the connections.

That is why you use a model. (look up episode 1 and 3 of the ryan mackey hardfire debates). The model doesn't have to EXACTLY match what you see in reality, it just has to be close enough.

The model is not "close enough". It's a million miles away. Columns broke that couldn't have been hit by fuel.