Merged No Planes At WTC (Split from: WTC Dust)

Status
Not open for further replies.
DGM said:
Inertia. You might want to look it up some time. Fascinating "new physics".

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Nope. It's just Newton's 3rd Law. No need to get fancy.

If an airplane imparts a force onto a building, the building imparts exactly that same force onto the plane.

If you say an airplane went REALLY fast and therefore had a REALLY large amount of kinetic energy that it imparted onto the building, same story. The building would have imparted exactly that amount of force back onto the airplane, and it would have destroyed itself even more quickly and completely.

The official plane crash conspiracy has convinced you that cartoon physics is real, but it isn't. This is one of the reasons I dislike science fiction.
 
3rd law is so simple, how the hell do so many people manage to understand it so poorly?
 
DGM said:
Jaye, It's to bad "they" never told you you were never in any danger. After all you tank (M-1 Abrams if I recall) weighed much more then anything that was being shot at it.


:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yeah, as Tank Commander on the Abrams, I was never in danger from anything. I was completely safe from all elements of warfare because my tank weighed 72 tons, far exceeding any munitions propelled towards it.
 
WTC Dust said:
Nope. It's just Newton's 3rd Law. No need to get fancy.

If an airplane imparts a force onto a building, the building imparts exactly that same force onto the plane.

.
Click to expand...

Very good. Now when the plane first impacted the building, would you say it was much more the 100 sq' of contact area?
 
Unsecured Coins said:
Yeah, as Tank Commander on the Abrams, I was never in danger from anything. I was completely safe from all elements of warfare because my tank weighed 72 tons, far exceeding any munitions propelled towards it.
Click to expand...

What about hi-velocity Sabots ? Would the shockwave do no damage to the crew ?
 
WTC Dust said:
Nope. It's just Newton's 3rd Law. No need to get fancy.

If an airplane imparts a force onto a building, the building imparts exactly that same force onto the plane.

If you say an airplane went REALLY fast and therefore had a REALLY large amount of kinetic energy that it imparted onto the building, same story. The building would have imparted exactly that amount of force back onto the airplane, and it would have destroyed itself even more quickly and completely.

The official plane crash conspiracy has convinced you that cartoon physics is real, but it isn't. This is one of the reasons I dislike science fiction.
Click to expand...

Unsecured Coins said:
Yeah, as Tank Commander on the Abrams, I was never in danger from anything. I was completely safe from all elements of warfare because my tank weighed 72 tons, far exceeding any munitions propelled towards it.
Click to expand...

So what do you think Dr Dust. Is he right?
 
bill smith said:
Am I right in thinking that you do not think that the answer is in the following video ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNXmgF2yAEc
Click to expand...

I studied TV Video Fakery for two years, and eventually threw it into the garbage can, embarrassed that it took me that long to debunk it.

TV Fakery says everyone who says they saw a plane in the sky that day are liars, and I just could never bring myself to do that. Too many people, friends and strangers alike, have told me that they saw (what they thought was) an airplane in the sky for me to call them all liars.

My friend stood on a rooftop at Montclair College in New Jersey, and said she saw the plane. I quizzed her backwards and forwards, probably annoying her, but she said absolutely that she did see the plane from the top of the roof.

A young colleague of mine said he saw it from out his window when he was in high school in Brooklyn. The man seemed to be transported back in time when I questioned him closely about it. He insisted that he, yes, saw a plane out of an open window in Brooklyn.

If the fake plane was a magic trick, it all fits. Eyewitness testimony, video and still photography, lack of a plane crash. It all fits.

A real plane doesn't fit because there was no plane crash and because planes can't do that to buildings, anyway.

A "faked video CGI-inserted" plane doesn't fit because of all the eyewitness testimony and videographic evidence.

A fake plane fits ALL the data, which is why I think it happened.
 
WTC Dust said:
I studied TV Video Fakery for two years, and eventually threw it into the garbage can, embarrassed that it took me that long to debunk it.

TV Fakery says everyone who says they saw a plane in the sky that day are liars, and I just could never bring myself to do that. Too many people, friends and strangers alike, have told me that they saw (what they thought was) an airplane in the sky for me to call them all liars.

My friend stood on a rooftop at Montclair College in New Jersey, and said she saw the plane. I quizzed her backwards and forwards, probably annoying her, but she said absolutely that she did see the plane from the top of the roof.

A young colleague of mine said he saw it from out his window when he was in high school in Brooklyn. The man seemed to be transported back in time when I questioned him closely about it. He insisted that he, yes, saw a plane out of an open window in Brooklyn.

If the fake plane was a magic trick, it all fits. Eyewitness testimony, video and still photography, lack of a plane crash. It all fits.

A real plane doesn't fit because there was no plane crash and because planes can't do that to buildings, anyway.

A "faked video CGI-inserted" plane doesn't fit because of all the eyewitness testimony and videographic evidence.

A fake plane fits ALL the data, which is why I think it happened.
Click to expand...

Will you listen to the female commentators at around the 1:10 mark in this video and tell me what you think their behaviour indicates ? The video can take a little while to load.

http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/news/watch/v224407KjaBKxn6#
 
bill smith said:
What about hi-velocity Sabots ? Would the shockwave do no damage to the crew ?
Click to expand...

Bill, I will be as courteous as possible in my reply, but as I am at work and tapping away on a blackberry, I only ask you to be patient and wait until I am home on how the APFSDS works.

Deal?
 
How about small Japanese fighters hitting Aircraft Carriers?
16 April 1945: USS Intrepid
'Kamikaze struck Intrepid's flight deck. The engine and part of her fuselage went right on through to the hanger deck, killing 8 men and wounding 21'

21 January 1945: USS Ticonderoga
'Kamikaze crashed through her flight deck abreast of the No. 2 5-inch mount with a bomb exploding just above her hangar deck'

30 October 1944: USS Franklin
'Attacked by three kamikazes. The second hit the flight deck and broke through onto the gallery deck, killing 56 and wounding 60. 33 aircraft were destroyed.'

25 October 1944: USS Suwanee
'A Zero fighter plane struck about 40 feet forward of the after elevator, opening a 10-foot hole in her flight deck'

7 June 1945: USS Natoma Bay
'At 0635 attacked by a Zero fighter plane. The engine, propeller and a bomb tore a hole in the flight deck'

25 October 1944: USS Santee
' At 0740, a Japanese plane struck and penetrated through the flight deck, stopping on the hangar deck sixteen men were killed.'

25 October 1944: USS St Lo
'One plane crashed through St. Lo's flight deck at 1051. It's bomb exploded in the hanger and set fire to the aircraft and gasoline fuel system. This fire eventually exploded her torpedo and bomb magazine. St. Lo sank a half hour later'

8 January 1945: USS Cadashan Bay
'An "Oscar" struck the ship amidships directly below the bridge penetrating the hull. Fires and flooding were checked after one and a half hours and there was no loss of life.'

21 February 1945 USS Bismark Sea
'Hit on the flight deck by two kamikazes off Iwo Jima. Badly damaged by the attack, she sank about 90 minutes later with the loss of 218 men.'
 
DGM said:
No! Some might but. the vast majority goes through. (If your in MA sometime I can show this to you in person).
Click to expand...

The water that DOESN'T hit the steel goes through. The water that DOES hit the steel bounces backwards. Until the first hole is pierced into the steel, ALL of the water bounces backwards.

Any part of a plane that hit the steel exterior beams of the south face of WTC 2 would have bounced backwards in the southerly direction at the moment of impact. Not later. And not in the northerly direction or to the east. At least some of the plane would have bounced back towards the south if a plane flew into WTC 2 heading north. Since no debris was seen heading in the southerly direction, no plane crash took place at 9:03AM.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
I guess we became distracted there for a minute and went a little off topic. We should let WTC Dust carry on with her mutilation of jref debunkers.
Click to expand...

I just caught this. You think I'm mutilating the JREFers? <blush> Aww, shucks. I thought I was just doing a pretty good job. Thanks for the compliment.
 
WTC Dust said:
The water that DOESN'T hit the steel goes through. The water that DOES hit the steel bounces backwards. Until the first hole is pierced into the steel, ALL of the water bounces backwards.

Any part of a plane that hit the steel exterior beams of the south face of WTC 2 would have bounced backwards in the southerly direction at the moment of impact. Not later. And not in the northerly direction or to the east. At least some of the plane would have bounced back towards the south if a plane flew into WTC 2 heading north. Since no debris was seen heading in the southerly direction, no plane crash took place at 9:03AM.
Click to expand...
So what makes the hole?


:confused:

Oh BTW My partner owns a water-jet. I own a PLASMA cutter and a THERMAL LANCE!
 
Captain_Swoop said:
How about small Japanese fighters hitting Aircraft Carriers?
16 April 1945: USS Intrepid
'Kamikaze struck Intrepid's flight deck. The engine and part of her fuselage went right on through to the hanger deck, killing 8 men and wounding 21'

21 January 1945: USS Ticonderoga
'Kamikaze crashed through her flight deck abreast of the No. 2 5-inch mount with a bomb exploding just above her hangar deck'

30 October 1944: USS Franklin
'Attacked by three kamikazes. The second hit the flight deck and broke through onto the gallery deck, killing 56 and wounding 60. 33 aircraft were destroyed.'

25 October 1944: USS Suwanee
'A Zero fighter plane struck about 40 feet forward of the after elevator, opening a 10-foot hole in her flight deck'

7 June 1945: USS Natoma Bay
'At 0635 attacked by a Zero fighter plane. The engine, propeller and a bomb tore a hole in the flight deck'

25 October 1944: USS Santee
' At 0740, a Japanese plane struck and penetrated through the flight deck, stopping on the hangar deck sixteen men were killed.'

25 October 1944: USS St Lo
'One plane crashed through St. Lo's flight deck at 1051. It's bomb exploded in the hanger and set fire to the aircraft and gasoline fuel system. This fire eventually exploded her torpedo and bomb magazine. St. Lo sank a half hour later'

8 January 1945: USS Cadashan Bay
'An "Oscar" struck the ship amidships directly below the bridge penetrating the hull. Fires and flooding were checked after one and a half hours and there was no loss of life.'

21 February 1945 USS Bismark Sea
'Hit on the flight deck by two kamikazes off Iwo Jima. Badly damaged by the attack, she sank about 90 minutes later with the loss of 218 men.'
Click to expand...

Were any of these airplanes unscathed from the attacks?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom