Split Thread 'Nose-out' footage

[beachnut]

... The surface area was 58% steel. ...

Then the surface area is 42 percent glass. And the window section is about 62 percent glass. Math is neat. Does this mean the nose-out moronic no plane delusion is true. No, it means you are willing to continue to support the insanity of no plane garbage made up originally by idiots who can't form rational conclusions. 95 percent of the WTC was air; so?

Got physics?

 

[bardamu]

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)

Think about this: if the steel plate had not hit the car, the car wouldn't have damaged the steel plate. Now apply the same thinking to the broken columns that couldn't have been hit by fuel.

 

[bardamu]

We've just witnessed a shift of goalposts of epic proportions:

1. The debunkers present a model claiming that it proves definitively that planes could have caused the damage to the towers and that the burden of proof is now on the truth movement to show that the debunkers have made an assumption that is wrong or grossly misleading.

2. The truth movement shows that the debunkers have made an assumption that is wrong and grossly misleading.

3. The debunkers claim that the model was merely an illustration and was never meant to prove anything.

Irreducible delusion much?

 

[bill smith]

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...
[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/rocksDontsupportJones.jpg[/qimg]
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.

You should understand by now that I never deliberately lie Beachnut. What would be the point ?

 

[dafydd]

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're just pissing on their graves bill,it might give you a cheap thrill but it disgusts me.

 

[Slayhamlet]

Think about this: if the steel plate had not hit the car, the car wouldn't have damaged the steel plate. Now apply the same thinking to the broken columns that couldn't have been hit by fuel.

What in the world are you talking about? Why couldn't the columns have been hit by the fuel? And why are you talking as if fuel were the only thing that could break the columns?

 

[bill smith]

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.

This post says a lot DGM. More than you might want I suspect.

 

[Slayhamlet]

You're just pissing on their graves bill,it might give you a cheap thrill but it disgusts me.

Can you please stop quoting Bill Smith? A troll is a troll. There's no reason to respond.

Really, is that too much to ask?

 

[bill smith]

You're just pissing on their graves bill,it might give you a cheap thrill but it disgusts me.

You know better than that dafydd. Try not to be so cheap,

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Mine in bold:

We've just witnessed a shift of goalposts of epic proportions:

1. The debunkers present a model claiming that it proves definitively that planes could have caused the damage to the towers and that the burden of proof is now on the truth movement to show that the debunkers have made an assumption that is wrong or grossly misleading.

8 years of shifting the goal posts around from Truthers, I think it's high time to present any physical evidence that the Truth Movement might have

2. The truth movement shows that the debunkers have made an assumption that is wrong and grossly misleading.

We don't "assume" anything. We're just pointing out the lies, distortions & myths from the Truth Movement & their cult followers.

3. The debunkers claim that the model was merely an illustration and was never meant to prove anything.

Engineers & Architects use models so they can understand what happened. They're like (<---similie) cops that are trying to understand a crime scene, they gather evidence.

Irreducible delusion much?

Sorry, we don't watch cartoons all day!

 

[bardamu]

What in the world are you talking about? Why couldn't the columns have been hit by the fuel? And why are you talking as if fuel were the only thing that could break the columns?

Do you disagree with the following statements, then?

We conclude that momentum from the fuel alone is enough to destroy the steel columns

So what we conclude at the end of this exercise is, the damage we see is completely credible, and that is good enough to dismiss the truth movement when they say this damage doesn't make sense. You turn around and say: "we've gone through this exercise and to us it makes sense. So if you want to demonstrate that your claim is correct, the burden of proof is now upon you. You need to improve your reasoning. You need to show where we've made a mistake. You need to show where one of our assumptions is either wrong or grossly distorting the result, and until you do that, this is the right way to look at the problem".

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...YwgPQ6uDLAw&q=hardfire+physics+of+9/11&hl=en#

 

[bill smith]

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?"

If any mods are reading this I think it is becoming increasngly obvious that Ron Wieck should be readmitted to the forum. There are a million questions for him to answer.

 

[bardamu]

You know better than that dafydd. Try not to be so cheap,

It's a good sign, Bill. If they had any faith in their prized model, they'd be arguing the maths. Now their pseudo science has failed, all they have is the alleged eyewitnesses and cheap insults.

 

[Slayhamlet]

Do you disagree with the following statements, then?

No, I do not. And I can already see where you're misrepresenting the argument. Pretty transparent, even for a no-planer.

Now how about answering my questions?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Clearly they think buildings are solid volumes of uniform mass with no livable space inside. The very prospect of a high speed projectile completely overwhelming a structural connection between two or more connecting columns is unfathomable. I've had my fun, this is about as entertaining as talking about death lasers of the Judy Wood variety. It's old... and based on more ignorance than even the controlled demolition screwyness...

 

[beachnut]

It's a good sign, Bill. If they had any faith in their prized model, they'd be arguing the maths. Now their pseudo science has failed, all they have is the alleged eyewitnesses and cheap insults.

You have presented zero science to support your moronic delusions. You team up with bill, she post pure junk and that is perfect match. I can't imagine how you and bill can be more terrible at investigating 911 the only equals you have are p4t, CIT, gage's cult of dolts, and Jones super nano-thermite insanity.

You two are posting the wrong forum as you show no signs of having skeptical thoughts about the delusions you fail to support with facts.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

It's a good sign, Bill. If they had any faith in their prized model, they'd be arguing the maths. Now their pseudo science has failed, all they have is the alleged eyewitnesses and cheap insults.

You've got zero physcial evidence Bard. "Alleged" eyewitnesses? Listen, they were there & you weren't, so quit crying & grow up!

 

[DGM]

We've just witnessed a shift of goalposts of epic proportions:

1. The debunkers present a model claiming that it proves definitively that planes could have caused the damage to the towers and that the burden of proof is now on the truth movement to show that the debunkers have made an assumption that is wrong or grossly misleading.

2. The truth movement shows that the debunkers have made an assumption that is wrong and grossly misleading.

3. The debunkers claim that the model was merely an illustration and was never meant to prove anything.

Irreducible delusion much?

Did I miss something here? You still have not shown the model to be incorrect. The volume of fuel is still correct despite how you say it was distributed. The net result remains the same. The "fuel slug" severs the columns.

Do you plan to show your calculations to dispute his claims or are you going to continue to tap dance around them?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I think Bard meant wing spar, not "fuel slug".

The wing spar is the strongest part in the wings. They were strong enough to go through 2" steel.

 

[DGM]

This post says a lot DGM. More than you might want I suspect.

Yeah, it says you have nothing to dispute the fact people saw the planes. "Readers" as you say, can plainly see you have nothing and it makes no difference what so ever who I knew that died that day. You have presented nothing.