Warring No planer factions- Shansksville and Pentagon no-planers vs WTC no planers

CIT and no-planers have about the same evidence standards. If after 10 years someone still thinks no planes hit the trade centers then there is no debate to be had, ten years is a long time as it is to hold onto such a blissfully stupid belief, no offense people...
 
Anyone that is willing to dismiss the 1000's of New Yorkers who saw the 2nd plane hit live..with their own eyes is beyond help. It's a quite pointless debate...like me trying to convince an Eagle's fan that the Cowboys are the best team in the division.
 
Macgyver1968 said:
Anyone that is willing to dismiss the 1000's of New Yorkers who saw the 2nd plane hit live..with their own eyes is beyond help. It's a quite pointless debate...like me trying to convince an Eagle's fan that the Cowboys are the best team in the division.
Click to expand...

Millions. Potentially, thousands could have witnessed it from a single skyscraper.
 
Macgyver1968 said:
I was being conservative in my number...let's just call it a "metric buttload" of New Yorkers. :)
Click to expand...

OR, pardon me for interjecting, only a handful of craftily faked witness testimonies, like the guy from ABC News who said he saw firsthand how a plane folded back its wings as it crashed into the Pentagon. lol.
 
Macgyver1968 said:
Anyone that is willing to dismiss the 1000's of New Yorkers who saw the 2nd plane hit live..with their own eyes is beyond help. It's a quite pointless debate...like me trying to convince an Eagle's fan that the Cowboys are the best team in the division.
Click to expand...

The no-plane believers are beyond help, a special kind of insanity.
 
twinstead said:
Tell you what I sure would need some extraordinary evidence to believe, in the face off ALL the evidence to the contrary, that the planes were fake. Anders, on the other hand, doesn't need much to believe it at all.

I find that odd
Click to expand...

It's a classic case of Irreducible Delusion. In this case, though, it's rather an unusual one; I think Anders's ID is that anything he chooses to believe is of necessity fact. In line with the Mackey model, at the point of having identified the ID it's then appropriate to re-evaluate my goals in interacting with him. In this case, since nobody could possibly take any of his claims seriously unless they share a similar ID, I think the only aim remaining is casual amusement, which fortunately is quite plentiful.

Dave
 
Anders Lindman said:
OR, pardon me for interjecting, only a handful of craftily faked witness testimonies, like the guy from ABC News who said he saw firsthand how a plane folded back its wings as it crashed into the Pentagon. lol.
Click to expand...

Ever see a person ejected from a car through the windshield with their arms out to the sides like a plane? No?! Well thank God you never have to see that happen.

Your arms/legs aren't as strong as your head & torso. Same principle with a plane, it's wings, rudder & elevators aren't as strong as the fuselage.

Of course the wings would fold back after hitting a wall. :rolleyes:
 
9/11 Chewy Defense said:
Ever see a person ejected from a car through the windshield with their arms out to the sides like a plane? No?! Well thank God you never have to see that happen.

Your arms/legs aren't as strong as your head & torso. Same principle with a plane, it's wings, rudder & elevators aren't as strong as the fuselage.

Of course the wings would fold back after hitting a wall. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yeah, right. :rolleyes: Both the fuselage and the wings would in reality go splat like a mosquito hitting a windshield. Not folding its wings back forming an arrow as the ABC witness claimed, nor super-strong wings like in this cruddy computer graphics simulation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSDfbm8OhCg ;)
 
Anders Lindman said:
Yeah, right. :rolleyes: Both the fuselage and the wings would in reality go splat like a mosquito hitting a windshield. Not folding its wings back forming an arrow as the ABC witness claimed, nor super-strong wings like in this cruddy computer graphics simulation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSDfbm8OhCg ;)
Click to expand...


"Both the fuselage and the wings would in reality go splat like a mosquito."

The problem with a plane is that it's made up of aluminum, a mosquito is made up of living cells. Huge difference you nitwit!

Screw that simulation! The wings aren't the strongest part on a plane. You think that Flight 77 went in like a cartoon that made a cartoon cutout of itself? You're ******* crazy!

Edit: Here's a picture of a plane structure:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...a=X&ei=v1pdTeyUEoSXtwesptGCCw&ved=0CBgQ9QEwAQ

Notice how the wings are hollow (to allow fuel) & little of the supports are holding it together? Anders, you're frocked!

The background is this site: http://physics911.net/missingwings
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
Yeah, right. :rolleyes: Both the fuselage and the wings would in reality go splat like a mosquito hitting a windshield. Not folding its wings back forming an arrow as the ABC witness claimed, nor super-strong wings like in this cruddy computer graphics simulation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSDfbm8OhCg ;)
Click to expand...

Please explain in detail the physics that supports this argument.
 
Craig4 said:
You've got to be kidding.
Click to expand...

It's a simple illustration. To do accurate and complete analytical analysis of the physics involved is very complicated. Requiring advanced finite element analysis using computers or other such tools.
 
Anders Lindman said:
It's a simple illustration. To do accurate and complete analytical analysis of the physics involved is very complicated. Requiring advanced finite element analysis using computers or other such tools.
Click to expand...

Ahem..that's been done

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/mov/2007/HoffmannWTC.mov


'Mete Sozen, Purdue's Kettlehut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering and a principal investigator on the simulation project, says the researchers worked for years and used the best computing resources available to recreate the event.

"To estimate the serious damage to the World Trade Center core columns, we assembled a detailed numerical model of the impacting aircraft as well as a detailed numerical model of the top 20 stories of the building," Sozen says. "We then used weeks of supercomputer time over a number of years to simulate the event in many credible angles of impact of the aircraft."

Sozen says the actual damage to the building's facade that was observed was identical to the damage shown by the numerical simulation.

"We calibrated our calculations using data from experiments we had conducted to evaluate the energy imparted from fluid moving at high speed to solid targets," he says. "We concluded that the damage map we calculated for our numerical model of the building would correspond closely to the actual extent of the damage."

The simulation represented the plane and its mass as a mesh of hundreds of thousands of "finite elements," or small squares containing specific physical characteristics. In the visualization, these scientific data points are used to show how airplane components swept through the building and out through the other side as the fuel ignited.

"The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow," Sozen says. "Consequently, much of the fireproofing insulation was ripped off the structure. Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact - an unlikely event - the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns. The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel. Evaluation of the effects of the fire on the core column structure, with the insulation removed by the impact, showed that collapse would follow whatever the number of columns cut at the time of the impact."'

http://www.purdue.edu/uns/x/2007a/070612HoffmannWTC.html
 
Anders Lindman said:
It's a simple illustration. To do accurate and complete analytical analysis of the physics involved is very complicated. Requiring advanced finite element analysis using computers or other such tools.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that it's okay to accuse people of mass murder and trivialize the loss of thousands even though you can't be bothered to apply the effort and discipline necessary to understand the topic. This is why I say that this topic deserves better than you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom