Merged No Planer calls for scientific study / Missiles of 9/11

Montag451 said:
No I believe it is a bunch of white pixels found on an image uploaded by a truther on YouTube who has admitted to manipulating the image.

Or it is a real flash that was set off to allow future video technicians to edit planes in to all footage available of the most filmed terrorist event the planet has ever seen? I know which one is logically more likely.
Click to expand...

Why is it all truther theories always sound like something thought up by a not very bright ten year old?
 
Anders Lindman said:
But again, you ignore the evidence from several different camera angles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRL_IptUYTA

Ok, I will let you off the hook. It's not easy to debunk this, I know. ;)
Click to expand...

Would you accept that it is possible to add a flash to a single image?
If it is possible to do it to one then it is possible to add it to any shot you wanted.
Would you accept that if the flash is real it should be present on all footage of the face of the building?

Or is your premise that it was present on every piece of footage but somehow it was edited out of every piece of footage that existed. Except that these pieces of footage were somehow missed and they fell into the hands of the YouTube truther who has admitted to manipulating the image.

This is actually very easy to resolve. Just get multiple other videos and look for the artifacts that must be present in every single one of them where they were edited out. I say must because somehow digital technology is not capable of adding a flash, so they must not be capable of removing the flash.

Even better how is it not possible to add a flash, yet it is possible to add a plane?

Have to say it isn't that hard.
 
Last edited:
There is a flash in this video:



Just as with UA175, maybe, I dunno, it's from the release of energy from the ferocity of the impact? :rolleyes:
 
Mikeys said:
No-planes divert the issue hence they are more likely to be manipulators. Who cares whether there were planes there or no. They could not have done the kind of damage they are assumed to have done. Their existence doesn't matter. The claim is real.
Click to expand...

Proven to have done. By scientific study. Some of which is now used in engineering classes.

If you mean "make the buildings collapse", no, they needed help from the fire to do that. Fire and impact. You need both.

Mikeys said:
I wonder what the believers will say after watching this video. It will hurt their fragile social little egos.
Click to expand...

That the WTC wasn't made of concrete and the plane in question was both larger and going much faster? Even I know that's exponentially more impact force.
 
Mikeys said:
I wonder what the believers will say after watching this video. It will hurt their fragile social little egos.
Click to expand...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q35xHzjxB0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPe-bKIid8w
Funny stuff, you debunk yourself and you don't know it. Typical failed 911 truth believers in woo always do this.
That is cool, the WTC was not made of concrete. No wonder you can't get much right, you don't know anything about the WTC structure, and don't like to research physics.

The video was testing concrete 3.66 meters thick as a method of protecting nukes, or other structures from high speed impacts.

The WTC was designed to resist impacts from planes flying 180 mph. This design was confirmed by engineers after 911, 200 mph impacts would not do major damage. E=1/2mv2
You have no idea why aircraft damaged the WTC, you are unwittingly playing both sides of the physics problem. It is amusing you have no idea you are debunking yourself.

It is not belief, we are not believers, we are people who do math, you are the believer who makes up what you think should happen based on nothing but your opinion. You can't show the math, you have no clue what the WTC was designed for.

https://share.sandia.gov/news/resources/video-gallery/index.html#rocketsled

Typical post and run, not discussing the failed claims, moving the goal posts, running on to the next post of nonsense - why do you do this?
You think aircraft are made of Al foil, you think a nose cone came out of the WTC, and you have no clue why an aircraft can enter a building going 590 mph, but can't at 200 mph.
 
beachnut said:
That is cool, the WTC was not made of concrete.
Click to expand...
The vid shows what happens to the fuselage on impact against stuff that is much stronger, in this case concrete
No wonder you can't get much right, you don't know anything about the WTC structure, and don't like to research physics.
Click to expand...
WTC was a steel structure. I know how a steel frame works.Are you trying to tell me the events of 911 have been thoroughly incorporated into engineering.
The WTC was designed to resist impacts from planes flying 180 mph. This design was confirmed by engineers after 911, 200 mph impacts would not do major damage. E=1/2mv2
Click to expand...
Are you winding me up or yourself? Can you elaborate on this equation? Resist in what form?
You have no idea why aircraft damaged the WTC, you are unwittingly playing both sides of the physics problem. It is amusing you have no idea you are debunking yourself.
Click to expand...
Its mass and velocity that damaged the WTC.
It is not belief, we are not believers, we are people who do math, you are the believer who makes up what you think should happen based on nothing but your opinion. You can't show the math, you have no clue what the WTC was designed for.
Click to expand...
Believe me, you are believers.

Typical post and run, not discussing the failed claims, moving the goal posts, running on to the next post of nonsense - why do you do this?
Click to expand...
When you reread my posts you will see I stick to one thing at a time.
you think a nose cone came out of the WTC, and you have no clue why an aircraft can enter a building going 590 mph, but can't at 200 mph.
Click to expand...
So you admit the planes were swallowed by the towers.That's the issue we are discussing here. The photos clearly show the plane entering the building, cutting through it like knife through butter. I suspect your believes stem from videos rather than science.KE enough to smash a rigid steel frame is not enough to destroy the plane on impact. Its fascinating. We take for granted things we intuitively believe are a matter of fact and yet they so often run counter to our experience and intuition, just like the planes did on 911, and the steel structures of 3 towers that fell down neatly like a pile of bristle matches stacked one on top of the other. How that plane could make its own imprint in a rigid steel frame and tell the tale afterwards? Someone here pointed that hurricane can embed a stalk of straw in a tree. Good observation, and although it is only a straw argument, it is someplace to start.
 
000063 said:
Proven to have done. By scientific study. Some of which is now used in engineering classes.
Click to expand...
Why only some.
If you mean "make the buildings collapse", no, they needed help from the fire to do that. Fire and impact. You need both.
Click to expand...
You see, there was no impact on WTC7, just mystery.


That the WTC wasn't made of concrete and the plane in question was both larger and going much faster? Even I know that's exponentially more impact force.
Click to expand...
The speed was 500mph in both cases.
 
Mikeys said:
Its mass and velocity that damaged the WTC.
Click to expand...

It's much more useful to think in terms of rate of momentum transfer. The columns were unable to accelerate fast enough to stop the plane. The connections fractured, as it happens, that being the first failure mode to be satisfied.

Mikeys said:
Someone here pointed that hurricane can embed a stalk of straw in a tree. Good observation, and although it is only a straw argument, it is someplace to start.
Click to expand...

And birds can pentrate aircraft fuselages. How, in your world where harder things always win the argument?
 
Mikeys said:
You see, there was no impact on WTC7, just mystery.
Click to expand...

No impact except a big chunk of the 110-story North Tower, followed by 8 hours of uncontrolled, raging fires. No building could have been reasonably expected to survive that. Thus no mystery.
 
Mikeys said:
We take for granted things we intuitively believe are a matter of fact and yet they so often run counter to our experience and intuition, just like the planes did on 911, and the steel structures of 3 towers that fell down neatly like a pile of bristle matches stacked one on top of the other.
Click to expand...

If WTC 1, 2 and 7 fell neatly into a pile how is it that 12 buildings were destroyed that day, another 25 or severely damaged and around another 100 or so damaged?
 
GlennB said:
It's much more useful to think in terms of rate of momentum transfer. The columns were unable to accelerate fast enough to stop the plane. The connections fractured, as it happens, that being the first failure mode to be satisfied.
Click to expand...
The bolts broke you mean. Look at the video of the plane entering the wall. It has the answer.


And birds can pentrate aircraft fuselages. How, in your world where harder things always win the argument?
Click to expand...
I am not surprised they can.
 
Mikeys said:
Why only some. ...
Click to expand...
Failed question based on Reading comprehension issues.

Mikeys said:
... You see, there was no impact on WTC7, just mystery. ...
Click to expand...
Fire! Fire mystery to Mikeys. Fire not understood, fire mystery. Good one.

Mikeys said:
...
The speed was 500mph in both cases.
Click to expand...
No, the speed for 11 was 470 mph, the speed for 175 was 590 mph. You don't have any idea what the facts are, and it shows.

Physics is a mystery to you too.



Mikeys said:
The vid shows what happens to the fuselage on impact against stuff that is much stronger, in this case concrete
Click to expand...
No, the impact was a study to see how thick a concrete structure has to be to stop an aircraft attack on a structures like NUKE plants. You failed to comprehend what the study was for. On 911 a KE impact of 187 pounds of TNT would not enter the WTC. The two planes has KE of 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT, easily enough energy for the wings and plane to enter the WTC. Got MATH? No, you have woo.

Mikeys said:
WTC was a steel structure. I know how a steel frame works.Are you trying to tell me the events of 911 have been thoroughly incorporated into engineering.
Click to expand...
No, you have no clue what structures do, or what steel is. You think planes are made of Al foil. Pretty much sums up your research skills.


Mikeys said:
Are you winding me up or yourself? Can you elaborate on this equation? Resist in what form?
Click to expand...
Yes, I will elaborate on the equation! You don't do physics!


Mikeys said:
Its mass and velocity that damaged the WTC.
Believe me, you are believers.
Click to expand...
See, you do understand the aircraft did all the damage, but then you fail.



Mikeys said:
When you reread my posts you will see I stick to one thing at a time.
So you admit the planes were swallowed by the towers.That's the issue we are discussing here. The photos clearly show the plane entering the building, cutting through it like knife through butter. I suspect your believes stem from videos rather than science.KE enough to smash a rigid steel frame is not enough to destroy the plane on impact. Its fascinating. We take for granted things we intuitively believe are a matter of fact and yet they so often run counter to our experience and intuition, just like the planes did on 911, and the steel structures of 3 towers that fell down neatly like a pile of bristle matches stacked one on top of the other. How that plane could make its own imprint in a rigid steel frame and tell the tale afterwords? Someone here pointed that hurricane can embed a stalk of straw in a tree. Good observation, and although it is only a straw argument, it is someplace to start.
Click to expand...

The plane did not make a perfect imprint, it made the break in the shell due to mass and velocity. No one said the aircraft did not destroy itself at the same time it was breaking through the WTC.

Are you trying to say an aircraft did not cause the damage seen? Or, are standing on your aircraft are made of aluminum foil?


the steel structures of 3 towers that fell down neatly like a pile of bristle matches stacked one on top of the other
Click to expand...
Neatly? Not even close to neatly. You failed to look at photos. Please show me all the steel neatly stacked. Good luck.

Too shy to state your claims clearly? Why? Ashame? Unable to state your claim?
 
Last edited:
Mikeys said:
Look at the video of the plane entering the wall. It has the answer.
Click to expand...

If the video shows a shredded plane just beyond the wall then you'd be right. But it doesn't, so what on earth do you mean by "answer"? Do you seriously think the plane was essentially intact post-wall impact?

Mikeys said:
I am not surprised they can.
Click to expand...

Then why are you surprised a plane can smash through a bolted-up grid of steel?

Are you beginning to get the idea of momentum transfer? The wall would need to flex to soak up the momentum of the plane. There is only so far it can flex before steel ruptures or joints yield. How far is that? 12 inches? 24 inches? With the incoming plane at ~500mph how much time is that and how far would the wall need to flex like some huge steel safety net to 'stop' the plane? 12 feet? 24 feet? That far exceeds its capacity to flex.

Meanwhile you're happy to admit that softer things can penetrate harder things, so I'm really struggling to understand why you can't understand that those planes would break the building facades and the plane parts proceed inside.
 
Last edited:
Saw this the other day and thought of this thread
ibeam001.jpg

steel fought the wood and the wood won! :jaw-dropp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom