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

Anders Lindman said:
Because the video showed examples real life crashes. Calculations and simulations can be very inaccurate, as the simulation of the flight 175 crash showed. That's my gut feeling.
Click to expand...

There are medicines for upset stomachs.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Odd question. At what altitude does a recommendation cease to be a recommendation?

Dave
Click to expand...

"The reason for two airspeed limitations is due to air density at lower vs. higher altitudes. To understand equivalent dynamic pressures on an airframe of low vs. high altitude, there is an airspeed appropriately titled "Equivalent Airspeed" or EAS[1]. EAS is defined as the airspeed at sea level which produces the same dynamic pressure acting on the airframe as the true airspeed at high altitudes.[2]

Pilots For 9/11 Truth have calculated the Equivalent Airspeed for EA990 peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet as the equivalent dynamic effects of 425 knots at or near sea level. This airspeed is 65 knots over max operating for a 767, 85 knots less than the alleged United 175..."

From: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed
 
Anders Lindman said:
"The reason for two airspeed limitations is due to air density at lower vs. higher altitudes. To understand equivalent dynamic pressures on an airframe of low vs. high altitude, there is an airspeed appropriately titled "Equivalent Airspeed" or EAS[1]. EAS is defined as the airspeed at sea level which produces the same dynamic pressure acting on the airframe as the true airspeed at high altitudes.[2]

Pilots For 9/11 Truth have calculated the Equivalent Airspeed for EA990 peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet as the equivalent dynamic effects of 425 knots at or near sea level. This airspeed is 65 knots over max operating for a 767, 85 knots less than the alleged United 175..."

From: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed
Click to expand...

Well there's your problem right there. Pilots for truth are idiots. Exactly what does "over max operating" mean to you? Should the plane have disintegrated to little pieces exactly at that speed? 10 knots over? 50 knots over? 100 knots over? This is another example of you believing what you read on the internet no questions asked.
 
Last edited:
twinstead said:
Well there's your problem right there. Pilots for truth are idiots. Exactly what does "over max operating" mean to you? Should the plane have disintegrated to little pieces exactly at that speed? 10 knots over? 50 knots over? 100 knots over? This is another example of you believing what you read on the internet no questions asked.
Click to expand...

They talk about peak speed, which I take it is the maximum possible speed for the plane. Take a car for example. It has a top speed. The car cannot go faster than the top speed. In the same way, correct me if I'm wrong, the peak speed is the top speed for an airplane.

There is also talk about how flight 175 did a steep dive and leveled out just before the impact. That would perhaps allow for a speed above the peak speed. And in several videos the dive and the leveling out of flight 175 can be seen. BUT, as shown in September Clues, one video shows a perfectly level flight over a long distance all the way to the tower! Without any dive!!! Major inconsistency in the videos.
 
Anders Lindman said:
I believe all four plane crashes in the 9/11 attacks were faked. In this case, with the computer simulation, it's one of the crashes into the WTC.
Click to expand...

So you're saying there were the four real plane crashes and then someone faked an additional four? I don't understand. I watched the events very closely that morning and remember the four real plane crashes. I don't seem to recall any faked plane crashes following them. You must be mistaken.
 
Anders Lindman said:
I believe all four plane crashes in the 9/11 attacks were faked. In this case, with the computer simulation, it's one of the crashes into the WTC.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you do, but it is obvious that you have the lowest standard of evidence that I have ever seen. How you can declare 4 things with so much evidence to support them "fake" because it just "doesn't look right to you" and expect any serious response?

You realize that this sounds crazy even to those who think 9-11 was an inside job, right?
 
Craig4 said:
So you're saying there were the four real plane crashes and then someone faked an additional four? I don't understand. I watched the events very closely that morning and remember the four real plane crashes. I don't seem to recall any faked plane crashes following them. You must be mistaken.
Click to expand...

No, no real planes. See for example September Clues.
 
twinstead said:
I'm sure you do, but it is obvious that you have the lowest standard of evidence that I have ever seen. How you can declare 4 things with so much evidence to support them "fake" because it just "doesn't look right to you" and expect any serious response?

You realize that this sounds crazy even to those who think 9-11 was an inside job, right?
Click to expand...

Yes, many people who believe 911 was an inside job think the idea of no real planes hitting the towers crazy. I must admit that I too thought of the no plane idea as being completely kooky at first, but then something made me look into it a bit more and now I believe the no plane scenario is the most likely one.
 
I'd love Anders to give a narrative of what he thinks happened that day. Care to tell us what happened? Especially to the 4 aircraft, their passengers and crew. Were they just disappeared into thin air?

I'd also be interested in your David Copperfield trick of fooling 1000's of people and TV crews who filmed the second impact into believing they saw a plane impact. How does that actually work? Please give details not your typical 1 line answer.

Also give a definitive list of all the agencies that must be "in on it" for faking all the evidence that day. Should take you some time.

Hand wave in 3... 2... 1...
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
"Sozen says the actual damage to the building's facade that was observed was identical to the damage shown by the numerical simulation."

Which in turn shows that the simulation was as flawed as the staged crash.
Click to expand...

Uh, no. Which in turn shows that the no-plane claims are not based in physics or engineering. That's the take-home message. In your case, we'll have it sent to the alternate universe you seem to live in.;)

Maybe where you live the world is still flat, as well. Wouldn't surprise me in the least.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Much less than the building. Like a mosquito against an express train.
Click to expand...

Why does that idiot compare everything with a mosquito? :rolleyes:

Anders reminds me of charactors from "Spaceballs: The Movie":

Dark Helmet: Before you die there is something you should know about us, Lone Star.

Lone Starr: What?

Dark Helmet: I am your father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate.

Lone Starr: What's that make us?

Dark Helmet: Absolutely nothing! Which is what you are about to become.
Click to expand...

Here's my favorite quote:

Colonel Sandurz: Prepare ship for light speed.

Dark Helmet: No, no, no, light speed is too slow.

Colonel Sandurz: Light speed, too slow?

Dark Helmet: Yes, we're gonna have to go right to ludicrous speed.
Click to expand...

Yes, this thread is going to ludicrous speed. With the way Anders is going, sure looks like it.
 
Last edited:
Sunstealer said:
I'd love Anders to give a narrative of what he thinks happened that day. Care to tell us what happened? Especially to the 4 aircraft, their passengers and crew. Were they just disappeared into thin air?

I'd also be interested in your David Copperfield trick of fooling 1000's of people and TV crews who filmed the second impact into believing they saw a plane impact. How does that actually work? Please give details not your typical 1 line answer.

Also give a definitive list of all the agencies that must be "in on it" for faking all the evidence that day. Should take you some time.

Hand wave in 3... 2... 1...
Click to expand...


Nothing happened to any aircraft since they never existed in the first place. What we have are a couple of videos and photos that are fake. No single agency needed to have been involved. For example, the floors rigged with explosives were occupied by bank and insurance companies etc. Not even any major television network needed to have been involved in the initial conspiracy (except for a few people such as a CNN boss who was one of the (or the first) [false] witnesses of the first plane).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom