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

Anders Lindman said:
It's perhaps possible that a car would be able to cut through the exterior steel columns (who were thinner on the higher floors) BUT no way would a car be able to glide into one of the steel and concrete floors.

That's what I meant by the tennis racket analogy earlier. The floors and the steel columns would be like the strings in the racket. And a fragile airliner with lots of fuel in its wings would be like a raw egg hitting the tennis racket at high velocity. Would the egg/airliner splash a lot against the surface? I think it would.
Click to expand...

Why do people refer to aircraft as 'fragile'? They weigh a 100 tons and support themselves in the air through extreme conditions, all while travelling at several hundred MPH.

Tell me Anders, if a 757 was simply placed upon one of those concrete and steel floors would that floor have supported the added mass?
 
Anders Lindman said:
Compare with a crash of a real jet plane at 500 mph: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTa9JzRlxRQ

Lots of 'splash' across the crash surface. Unlike the video fakery of flight 175 where only tiny smoke puffs appeared on the crash surface.
Click to expand...

:wackylaugh:

Comparing a F4 weighing a few tons to a 757 weighing several dozen tons and a crash into a ten foot thick solid block of concrete to a high rise office building exterior.

Totaly exactly the same thing Anders, totally the same thing:rolleyes:
 
jaydeehess said:
Why do people refer to aircraft as 'fragile'? They weigh a 100 tons and support themselves in the air through extreme conditions, all while travelling at several hundred MPH.

Tell me Anders, if a 757 was simply placed upon one of those concrete and steel floors would that floor have supported the added mass?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess a lower floor (the lower the floor the more weight it could take) would withstand 100 metric tons if the mass was distributed across the floor.
 
jaydeehess said:
:wackylaugh:

Comparing a F4 weighing a few tons to a 757 weighing several dozen tons and a crash into a ten foot thick solid block of concrete to a high rise office building exterior.

Totaly exactly the same thing Anders, totally the same thing:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Enough similarity to create way more splash across the surface of the South Tower than can be seen in the 9/11 videos.
 
Anders Lindman said:
I haven't seen any new info that makes the no planes theory invalid.
Click to expand...

You mean other than the fact that there are not hundreds of eyewitnesses, to at least the second event (known far and wide as the impact into WT2), that have called radio talk shows and written letters to the editors and joined 9/11 'truth' groups beacuse they know first hand that no one in Manhattan that day actually saw the impacts?

Or you mean other than the fact that the whole line of thought of no-planes is bat-crap crazy?
 
Anders Lindman said:
I put in some effort :D and found: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL74ikIVDoE#at=160

He didn't see any plane.
Click to expand...

Nice dishonesty again. The man didn't notice it through his viewfinder, but the camera did get the plane. If you didn't start the video 10 minutes past where it impacted, you'd have seen it too.

Upon rewinding, the man realized a plane hit. As did those who were talking to him.

Your dishonesty is disgusting and it spits in the faces of the dead.
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
Enough similarity to create way more splash across the surface of the South Tower than can be seen in the 9/11 videos.
Click to expand...

Why, exactly?
Why should there be an enormous amount of aircraft debris shooting out from the sides of a structure that is penetrated?

I do believe that a small amount probably did do so but you won't find it anywhere.

It won't be immediatly visible in the videos since it is mixed with pieces of the building facade that are coming off as weel.
You won't find it in videos of the ground since no one in their right mind would be standing at the base of the towers directly under that hole 900 feet up, and anythig that was on the ground would be mixed in with pieces of the building that came off at impact or was blown out in the low velocity explosion of the fuel.
 
Justin39640 said:
Nice dishonesty again. The man didn't notice it through his viewfinder, but the camera did get the plane. If you didn't start the video 10 minutes past where it impacted, you'd have seen it too.

Upon rewinding, the man realized a plane hit. As did those who were talking to him.

Your dishonesty is disgusting and it spits in the faces of the dead.
Click to expand...

Rewinding? Do you mean some statement he has made some time after the event?
 
Justin39640 said:
Nice dishonesty again. The man didn't notice it through his viewfinder, but the camera did get the plane. If you didn't start the video 10 minutes past where it impacted, you'd have seen it too.

Upon rewinding, the man realized a plane hit. As did those who were talking to him.

Your dishonesty is disgusting and it spits in the faces of the dead.
Click to expand...

As an employee of a TV station who has taken many hours of video I am often suprised by what the lens captures that I did not see while taking the video. I have no reason to suspect that the bear that was looking at me from the treeline was actually not there and that the image was surreptitiously placed on my video between the time I took it and the time I viewed it in the edit suite. Yet I did not see that bear when I was looking through the viewfinder.

I have also caught smaller animals like birds and otters without having seen them in the VF, but they don't raise hair on the back of one's neck like a large black bear.
 
jaydeehess said:
Why, exactly?
Why should there be an enormous amount of aircraft debris shooting out from the sides of a structure that is penetrated?

I do believe that a small amount probably did do so but you won't find it anywhere.

It won't be immediatly visible in the videos since it is mixed with pieces of the building facade that are coming off as weel.
You won't find it in videos of the ground since no one in their right mind would be standing at the base of the towers directly under that hole 900 feet up, and anythig that was on the ground would be mixed in with pieces of the building that came off at impact or was blown out in the low velocity explosion of the fuel.
Click to expand...

Because like the tennis racket analogy I made earlier, a real crash would have resulted in more splash across the impact surface. The plane hit a grid of steel and concrete. The floors alone would have resisted the plane and caused a huge splash directly at impact.
 
Anders isn't here to look for the truth or evidence for his "no planes" theory. He's here to troll & disrupt the forum, like most Truthers do who don't have a clue.

Please, don't feed the troll, let it crawl back under the bridge it came from.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Yeah, I guess a lower floor (the lower the floor the more weight it could take)
Click to expand...


INCORRECT!
Each floor could take approx the same load as all other 109 of them.

The COLUMNS were larger but the floors only need bear the weight of whatever load could normally be expected to be on ONE floor. Aside from a half dozen mechanical floors all of them were constructed in the same way with the same trusses.
would withstand 100 metric tons if the mass was distributed across the floor.
Click to expand...

Why say it should be evenly distributed accross the floors Anders? The aircraft entered from one side and most of its mass would be on that side alone.
 
jaydeehess said:
INCORRECT!
Each floor could take approx the same load as all other 109 of them.

The COLUMNS were larger but the floors only need bear the weight of whatever load could normally be expected to be on ONE floor. Aside from a half dozen mechanical floors all of them were constructed in the same way with the same trusses.


Why say it should be evenly distributed accross the floors Anders? The aircraft entered from one side and most of its mass would be on that side alone.
Click to expand...

The fake plane entered the building horizontally, not from above. So it's the resistance the floors made horizontally that would make the plane splash more across the facade. Heck, even the exterior columns would make a splash of the plane too I reckon.
 
Anders Lindman said:
The fake plane entered the building horizontally, not from above. So it's the resistance the floors made horizontally that would make the plane splash more across the facade. Heck, even the exterior columns would make a splash of the plane too I reckon.
Click to expand...

Anders, you're here to troll. Either show some evidence or sources for your claims or get lost.
 
9/11 Chewy Defense said:
Anders isn't here to look for the truth or evidence for his "no planes" theory. He's here to troll & disrupt the forum, like most Truthers do who don't have a clue.

Please, don't feed the troll, let it crawl back under the bridge it came from.
Click to expand...

It's somewhat like the old god fanatics and their hair shirts. If he's not getting insulted/laughed at he doesn't feel wanted...
That he's not wanted is a given
 
Anders Lindman said:
The fake plane entered the building horizontally, not from above. So it's the resistance the floors made horizontally that would make the plane splash more across the facade. Heck, even the exterior columns would make a splash of the plane too I reckon.
Click to expand...

You're just not good enough to be taken seriously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom