Kamikaze Attacks and the Effect of Speed

[Profanz]

yes, we have all the other times large passenger aircraft were intentionally slammed into skyscrapers at high speeds

You have instances where jets have crashed into buildings. You don't however have where a steel structured building is claimed to have completely collapsed primarily because of fire. Except on 9/11. For two different fire related reasons for the first time in history. You don't sound like much of a skeptic to me.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

You have instances where jets have crashed into buildings. You don't however have where a steel structured building is claimed to have completely collapsed primarily because of fire. Except on 9/11. For two different fire related reasons for the first time in history. You don't sound like much of a skeptic to me.

there are instances of jets a fraction of the weight travelling a fraction of the speed hitting buildings of very different construction, yes. the comparison is no more of less valid than kamikaze attacks

 

[TJM]

You have instances where jets have crashed into buildings. You don't however have where a steel structured building is claimed to have completely collapsed primarily because of fire. Except on 9/11. For two different fire related reasons for the first time in history. You don't sound like much of a skeptic to me.

Debunk yourself much?

 

[lapman]

You have instances where jets have crashed into buildings. You don't however have where a steel structured building is claimed to have completely collapsed primarily because of fire. Except on 9/11. For two different fire related reasons for the first time in history. You don't sound like much of a skeptic to me.

Kader Toy Factory.

 

[NutCracker]

A World War II Kamikaze attack isn't what is claimed to have happened on 9/11. Don't you debunkers have any real comparisons?

Outside the world of the Truther Sciences, cough cough cough (sorry, really bad cold), other logical principles than "A looks likes B therefore A is a B" hold.

I will explain it to you. Hold on, persevere, try real, real hard, and you will understand. I tried the following on my 3 year old and she understood so there is hope for you.

The Kamikaze example is used falsify a Truther claim.

Some Truther's claim that jets are fakes of some kind because they couldn't possible have penetrated the towers/Pentagon, because a soft thingy cannot penetrate a hard thingy.

The premisse of this Truther claim, P, is thus "a soft thingy cannot penetrate a hard thingie."

The conclusion, C, of these Truthers' claim thus is something like "the planes where not real."

These Truthers' claim can thus now be formulated formally as "P holds, C implies P, and by Modus Ponens it follows that C holds."

Now, if we evil NWO agents are able to show a soft thingy that can penetrate a hard thingy then we have shown P to be false.

We evil, evil, sheeple, NWO debunkers than go on to show that P is false. We do this by showing a soft thingie that CAN penetrate a hard thingie. That soft thingie being a WWII Kamikaze plane and that hard thingy being a WWII navy vessel. We prove this by producing photographic evidence that in actuality said soft thingy has penetrated said hard thingy. We NWO agents have therefore shown the premise P the no-planers to be false. As a consequence these Truthers can no longer rely on P to arrive at there conclusion C.

Now, that should not be too difficult to absorb, should it?

We evil, evil, sheeple, official story worshipping NWO operatives could also have come up with other examples, such as the 2001 Milan Airport crash, the 2008(?) São Paulo TAM crash, the 1994 Amsterdam Airport El-Al crash where soft thingy aeroplanes have penetrated hard concrete building thingies. We could also have come up, and in fact did here on JREF, with the example of a soft thing, namely a stream of water, used to cut a hard thingy, namely, steel.

Got it? Fine.

 

[NutCracker]

You have instances where jets have crashed into buildings. You don't however have where a steel structured building is claimed to have completely collapsed primarily because of fire. Except on 9/11. For two different fire related reasons for the first time in history. You don't sound like much of a skeptic to me.

Err.. "being a skeptic" means something other than being an ignorant, delusional, paranoid emitter of logical fallacies.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Outside the world of the Truther Sciences, cough cough cough (sorry, really bad cold), other logical principles than "A looks likes B therefore A is a B" hold.

I will explain it to you. Hold on, persevere, try real, real hard, and you will understand. I tried the following on my 3 year old and she understood so there is hope for you.

The Kamikaze example is used falsify a Truther claim.

Some Truther's claim that jets are fakes of some kind because they couldn't possible have penetrated the towers/Pentagon, because a soft thingy cannot penetrate a hard thingy.

The premisse of this Truther claim, P, is thus "a soft thingy cannot penetrate a hard thingie."

The conclusion, C, of these Truthers' claim thus is something like "the planes where not real."

These Truthers' claim can thus now be formulated formally as "P holds, C implies P, and by Modus Ponens it follows that C holds."

Now, if we evil NWO agents are able to show a soft thingy that can penetrate a hard thingy then we have shown P to be false.

We evil, evil, sheeple, NWO debunkers than go on to show that P is false. We do this by showing a soft thingie that CAN penetrate a hard thingie. That soft thingie being a WWII Kamikaze plane and that hard thingy being a WWII navy vessel. We prove this by producing photographic evidence that in actuality said soft thingy has penetrated said hard thingy. We NWO agents have therefore shown the premise P the no-planers to be false. As a consequence these Truthers can no longer rely on P to arrive at there conclusion C.

Now, that should not be too difficult to absorb, should it?

We evil, evil, sheeple, official story worshipping NWO operatives could also have come up with other examples, such as the 2001 Milan Airport crash, the 2008(?) São Paulo TAM crash, the 1994 Amsterdam Airport El-Al crash where soft thingy aeroplanes have penetrated hard concrete building thingies. We could also have come up, and in fact did here on JREF, with the example of a soft thing, namely a stream of water, used to cut a hard thingy, namely, steel.

Got it? Fine.

Considering what Mythbusters did this week with a Styrofoam cup filled with a slushee-type drink you'd think that it would've sunk in by now...

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Considering what Mythbusters did this week with a Styrofoam cup filled with a slushee-type drink you'd think that it would've sunk in by now...

mythbusters also proved the moon landing wasnt faked, therefore they must be part of the conspiracy

 

[NutCracker]

Considering what Mythbusters did this week with a Styrofoam cup filled with a slushee-type drink you'd think that it would've sunk in by now...

Brilliant show. I live in Europe, so I guess I'll have to wait to be able to view this epsiode. On the plus side, NGC does rebroadcast ad-infinitum, so the probability that I'll miss it is 0.

 

[CompusMentus]

You have instances where jets have crashed into buildings. You don't however have where a steel structured building is claimed to have completely collapsed primarily because of fire. Except on 9/11. For two different fire related reasons for the first time in history. You don't sound like much of a skeptic to me.

Kader Toy Factory.

I hear the distant sound of goalposts shifting.....


Compus

 

[Scott Sommers]

Hay guys, I've become completely convinced by this Truther rewriting of physics. Especially after watching the now famous episode of Mythbusters where they fire a rocket at a car,

it's clear that the only possible explanation for the car getting blown all to Hell is that they secretly planted explosives, probably superduper nanothermite. Afterall, the 800 miles an hour clearly had no effect on the descructive power of the rocket.

Suck on that one Debunker!

 

[TokenMac]

Hay guys, I've become completely convinced by this Truther rewriting of physics. Especially after watching the now famous episode of Mythbusters where they fire a rocket at a car,

it's clear that the only possible explanation for the car getting blown all to Hell is that they secretly planted explosives, probably superduper nanothermite. Afterall, the 800 miles an hour clearly had no effect on the descructive power of the rocket.

Suck on that one Debunker!

FTFY

 

[BigAl]

A World War II Kamikaze attack isn't what is claimed to have happened on 9/11. Don't you debunkers have any real comparisons?

The tube-within-a-tube design of WTC1 and 2 was unique and contributed to the collapse. There was no other building like them.

 

[Profanz]

Kader toy factory?

BAH HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

Is this your debunking? The WTC was equivalent to the Kater toy factory? Did you come to this conclusion at the same time you concluded Kamikaze planes were equivalent to what is claimed to have happened on 9/11? Keep up the good work.

 

[NutCracker]

Kader toy factory?

BAH HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

Is this your debunking? The WTC was equivalent to the Kater toy factory? Did you come to this conclusion at the same time you concluded Kamikaze planes were equivalent to what is claimed to have happened on 9/11? Keep up the good work.

My dear friend. Have you read my post? My 3 year old does understand.

Something very similar applies to the KTF. Try really really hard. You can do it!

 

[Profanz]

My dear friend. Have you read my post? My 3 year old does understand.

Something very similar applies to the KTF. Try really really hard. You can do it!

I'm not your dear friend. The Kater toy factory is irrelevant to what is claimed to have happened to the WTC. Do you not even know your own story?

 

[funk de fino]

I'm not your dear friend. The Kater toy factory is irrelevant to what is claimed to have happened to the WTC. Do you not even know your own story?

Fire is irrelevant?

What a fail.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

A World War II Kamikaze attack isn't what is claimed to have happened on 9/11. Don't you debunkers have any real comparisons?

How does it differ other in the carrying of a bomb? The bad guys flies a plane into a target, commiting suicide in the process......we already know that the KE and fuel load of a 767 at 500mph plus is orders of magnitude (Do you know what that means?) greater than that for a Japanese single engine plane even with a bomb.
Plane makes hole starts big fire, ship sinks or tower fall down.

 

[jaydeehess]

Kader toy factory?

BAH HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

Is this your debunking? The WTC was equivalent to the Kater toy factory? Did you come to this conclusion at the same time you concluded Kamikaze planes were equivalent to what is claimed to have happened on 9/11? Keep up the good work.

Premise 1- A plane cannot penetrate steel
Observation1- Kamakaze aircraft penetrated steel war ships
Therefore the premise is shown to be invalid

Premise 2- No steel building has been destroyed primarily by fire
Observation 2- The Kader Toy factory was destroyed completely by fire alone
Theefore the premise is shown to be invalid.

sucks to be you

 

[NutCracker]

I'm not your dear friend. The Kater toy factory is irrelevant to what is claimed to have happened to the WTC. Do you not even know your own story?

Ah, I see. You don't have understood a word of what I wrote.

Moreover.. do I really have to hold the same argument using the twoofs "fire is not hot enough to cause collapse" claim and KTF counter example? A foetus does understand how to go from the "soft thingies cannot penetrate hard thingies"/Kamikaze counter example to the "fire is not hot enough to cause collapse"/KTF counter example. The very same logical principle is applied.

Are you really that dumb or are you just playing dumb?